3oTH  Sides 


OF   THELj^ 


"ariff  Question 


BY  THE 


WORLD'S 

Leading 

Men 


EXLIBRIS     •     Nt:D     ARDEN      FLOOD        If 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/bothsidesoftarifOOgladiala 


BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 


! 


BOTH    SIDES 


OF 


THE  TARIFF  QUESTION 


BY 


THE  WORLD'S  LEADING  MEN 


With  Portraits  and  Biographical  Notices 


SOLD   BY  SUBSCRIPTION   ONLY 


NEW   YORK 
ALONZO   PENISTON,    PUBLISHER 

338    BROADWAY 


CJopyright,  1889,  1880,  by  Llotd  Bbycb. 
Ck)pyright,  1890,  by  A.  Pkniston. 


All  riohts  reserved. 


BIS- 


TABLE OF  CONTENTS. 


Free  Thadk    By  The  Rt.  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone, 

Protection.    By  The  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine, 
Biographical  Sketch  of  Rt.  Hon.  W.  E.  GLADSffONE, 
Biographical  Sketch  of  Jas.  G.  Blaine,      .... 

THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.    By  The  Hon.  R.  Q 
Mills,  ...... 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Mr.  Mills  ,      -  -  -  - 

FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.    By  Senator  Justin  S.  Morrill 
Biographical  Sketch  of  Senator  Morrill, 

FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.    By  The  Hon.  W.  a  P.  Breck 

INRIDGE,  -  -  -  -  - 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,    - 

THE  TARIFF  ON  TRIAL.    By  Sir  Richard  J.  Cartwright  and  Mr, 
Thos.  B.  Shearman,         -  ...... 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Sir  Richard  J.  Cartwright, 

THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION.    By  The  Hon.  W.  McKinley,  Jr, 
Biographical  Sketch  of  Mr.  McKinley,     .... 

SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.    By  Andrew  Carne 
gie,  ......... 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Mr.  Carnegie,     .... 

THE  McKINLEY  BILL  IN  EUROPE.    By  GusTAVE  de  Molinari 
THE  QUESTIONS  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF.     By  Saml.  Men 

DUM,  .......... 

FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.    By  The  Hon.  Roger  Q 
Mills,  -  -  .         -  -  .... 


Page 

19 
45 
15 
17 

77 
75 

113 
111 

1^7 
135 

163  » 
161 

181 
179 

195 
193 

225 
239 
251 


Appendix, 

the  president's  panacea, 267 

Editorial  Note— Allen  Thorndike  Rice,          -         -          -  266 
Iron  and  Steel.    By  B.  F.  Jones,         ....            .268 

Iron  Ore.    By  George  H.  Ely,        .           .          -          -          .  270 
Iron  and  Steel— Wages,  Prices  and  Phofits.    By  John  Jar- 

rett,    -          -          -          -          -          -          -          -          -*-  273 


550521 


10 


APPENDIX. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  PANACEA.-(Continued.) 

Agricultural  Machinery.    By  A.  L.  Conger,    ... 
Textile  Machinery.    By  Stockton  Bates, 
Wool  Growing.    By  W.  S.  Shallenberger, 
Cotton  Manufactures.    By  Jonathan  Chace, 
Flax,  Hemp  and  Jute  Manufactures.    By  E.  A.  Hartshorn, 
Manufactures  of  Silk.    By  Wm.  C.  Wyckofp,    - 
Woollens  and  Worsteds.    By  Walter  H.  McDaniels,    - 
Coal.    By  Wm.  P.  De  Armit,     .  .  .        .  - 

Paper.    By  Wm,  A.  Russell,         ..... 
Plate  Glass.    By  N.  T.  De  Pauw,     .... 
Sugar  Culture.    By  Louis  Bush,  -  .  .  - 

Southern  Interests.    By  Jno.  P.  Varnum, 
The  Labor  Market.    By  H.  K.  Thurber, 
Agriculture.    By  Thos.  H.  Dudley, 


Page 

274 
276 
278 
279 
281 
283 
285 
286 
289 
290 


295 


LIST    OF    PORTRAITS. 


W.  E.  Gladstone, Frontispiece 

James  G.  Blaine, Facing  page  17 

R.  Q.  Mills, "  "     75 

Justin  S.  Morrill,         .-...-  "  "   111 

W.  McKiNLEY,  Jr., "  "179 

Andrew  Carnegie,      -  -  -  ■  -         -  *'         "  193 


A   DUEL, 

FREE  TRADE  :  By  the  Rt  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone. 
PROTECTION  :  By  the  Hon.  J.  G.  Blaine. 


Thc  Right  Hon.  William  E.  Gladstone. 


The  mere  mention  of  a  figure  so  conspicuous  in  English  national  life 
for  the  past  sixty  years  as  the  Rt.  Hon.  WiUiam  Ewart  Gladstone  serves  to 
recall  the  memory  of  events  and  personages  inextricably  blended  with  the 
most  important  movements  in  politics,  religion,  science  and  art  that  have 
wrought  their  lasting  impress  upon  the  nineteenth  century. 

Bom  in  the  city  of  Liverpool,  December  29,  1809,  the  son  of  Sir 
John  Gladstone,  descended  from  a  family  within  whose  veins  flowed,  in 
ancient  days,  the  blood  of  Scotia's  kings,  possessed  of  large  wealth  and 
vast  influence,  Wm.  E.  Gladstone  entered  upon  life's  stage  seemingly 
equipped  with  all  the  attributes  needed  to  command  success  in  any  pro- 
fession he  should  see  fit  to  engage  in. 

Graduating  in  1831  with  the  highest  honors  from  Christ  Church  Col- 
lege, Oxford,  after  a  brief  tour  in  Italy,  he  was  elected  to  ParUament  as  the 
representative  of  the  borough  of  Newark,  through  the  influence  of  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle. 

Once  fairly  within  the  arena  his  prowess  and  energy  were  so  fuUy  dis- 
played that  in  1834  he  was  advanced  by  the  recommendation  of  Peel  to 
the  rank  of  a  Jimior  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  Again  in  1841— the  Tory 
party  having  in  the  meantime  retired  and  returned  in  renewed  strength 
to  power — he  was  made  "Vice-President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  soon  after 
succeeding  Lord  Ripon  to  the  office  of  President. 

An  ardent  and  stanch  supporter  of  Peel,  whose  progress  toward 
LiberaUsm  and  Free  Trade  was  most  pronounced  near  the  close  of  his 
career,  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  1853,  as  tbe  acknowledged  leader  of  the  "Wliig 
party,  opposed  himself  so  strongly  against  the  Budget  championed  by  Mr. 
Disraeli  as  to  cause  it  to  be  overwhelmingly  rejected,  upon  which  followed 
the  resignation  of  the  Tories  led  by  Lord  Derby.  In  the  new  ministry  Mr. 
Gladstone  became  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 

The  details  of  his  schemes  for  reducing  the  national  debt  and  lighten- 
ing the  burden  of  taxation  resting  so  heavily  upon  the  people  cannot  be 
more  than  touched  upon  here.  His  acceptance  of  office  under  Lord 
Palmerston,  upon  the  downfall  of  the  Aberdeen  ministry,  his  resignation 
and  subsequent  reentry  into  the  Palmerston  cabinet  in  1859,  are  matters 
ably  treated  by  all  historians.     His  attitude  during  the  fateful  period  of 


10  THE  RIGHT  HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE. 

the  Crimean  war,  his  oft-repeated  conflicts  with  Mr.  Disraeli,  his  acces- 
don  to  the  office  of  Prime  Minister  in  1868,  again  in  1880,  and  yet  again 
in  1886,  involve  the  narration  of  a  series  of  events  to  which  it  would  be 
impossible  to  do  justice  in  this  limited  space. 

Looking  backward  over  the  wonderful  life  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  one  cannot 
fail  being  forcibly  struck  by  his  devotion  and  single-heartedness  to  the 
principles  he  so  strenuously  advocates.  Mistaken  he  may  have  been  at 
times,  yet  the  whole  tenor  of  his  course  is  so  in  consonance  with  the  cause 
of  truth  and  equity,  so  unselfishly  directed  to  the  amelioration  of  the  ills 
of  humanity,  that  even  his  political  enemies  ungrudingly  do  honor  to  his 
sterling,  personal  worth.  Numberless  are  the  bills  passed  through  his 
influence  whose  aim  and  operation  have  been  a  blessing  and  a  benefit  to 
the  English  people. 

As  an  orator,  Mr.  Gladstone  takes  rank  with  the  highest.  His 
speeches  arouse  an  enthusiasm  seldom  accorded  to  any  human  being, 
while  his  utterances  form  the  theme  of  discussion  for  the  press  of  the 
whole  world. 

In  the  enjoyment  of  a  vigorous,  robust  old  age,  crowned  thick  with 
the  honors  bestowed  upon  him  by  a  grateful  nation,  he  stands  to-day  as 
the  synonyme  of  all  that  is  manliest  and  best  for  the  coming  generation 
to  revere  and  imitate. 


Hon.  James  G.  Blaine. 


James  Gillespie  Blaine  was  bom  in  West  Brownsville,  Washing- 
ton Co.,  Pennsylvania,  JauuEiry  31, 1830,  being  the  second  son  of  Ephraim 
L.  Blaine  and  Maria  Gillespie.  From  his  ancestors  he  inherited  the 
sturdy  qualities  of  the  Scotch-Irish  blood,  chief  among  them  being 
a  love  of  learning  which  in  his  case  was  most  sedulously  cultivated,  and 
which  enabled  him  at  an  early  age  to  impress  his  personality  upon  the 
pubUc  mind. 

In  the  dawn  of  manhood  he  was  most  happily  united  in  marriage 
with  Miss  Harriet  Stanwood,  a  lady  belonging  to  one  of  the  most  cele- 
brated families  of  Maine,  and  after  devoting  some  little  time  to  teaching 
in  the  Western  Military  Institute  of  Blue  Lick  Springs,  Kentucky,  and  in 
the  Pennsylvania  Institute  for  the  Blind  at  Philadelphia,  he  removed  in 
1854  to  Augusta,  Me. ,  where  he  has  since  resided. 

Naturally  endowed  with  journalistic  instincts,  he  pvnchased  a  half  in- 
terest in  the  Kennebec  Journal,  and  by  his  aggressive  and  facile  pen  soon 
obtained  for  the  paper  recognition  as  a  power  second  to  none. 

In  1858  he  became  a  member  of  the  Maine  Legislatm:e,  and  from  that 
time  his  name  has  been  associated  with  party  leadership. 

Soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War  he  wa«  elected  to  Congress. 
Reelected  to  the  Thirty-ninth,  Fortieth  and  Forty-first  Congresses,  he 
displayed  such  wondrous  aptitude  in  parliamentary  affairs  that  he  was 
chosen  by  the  last-named  Congress  as  its  Speaker.  This  office  he  retained 
by  successive  reelections  for  six  years. 

Toward  the  conclusion  of  President  Grant's  second  term,  in  1876,  Mr. 
Blaine  became  a  foremost  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  Failing,  how- 
ever, to  obtain  the  nomination  by  only  a  few  votes — the  convention  set- 
tling upon  Gov.  Hayes,  of  Ohio — he  on  the  election  of  that  gentleman  was 
selected  to  fill  the  place  in  the  Senate  made  vacant  by  Senator  Morrill,  of 
Maine,  who  was  appointed  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  the  Hayes 
administration. 

In  the  Senate  Mr.  Blaine's  attitude  was  pronounced  on  several  very  im- 
portant questions.  Of  these  the  most  noted  were  the  currency  bill ,  the  subsi- 
dizing of  American  mail  steamers,  the  army  appropriation  bills  and  the 
restriction  of  Chinese  immigration.     He  was  appointed  in  1881  by  Presi- 


18  BON.  JAMES  a.  BLAINE. 

dent  Garfield  to  the  Secretaryship  of  State,  and  filled  the  office  most 
acceptably  till  the  death  of  the  President  by  an  assassin's  hand  brought 
the  Garfield  administration  to  an  end. 

At  the  llepublican  National  Convention  which  met  in  Chicago  in 
1884  Mr.  Blaine  was  nominated  for  President,  but  after  a  hard-fought 
cami)aign  waa  defeated  by  Hon.  Grover  Cleveland,  the  candidate  of  the 
Democratic  party.  Shortly  afterward  he  went  abroad,  and  was  greeted 
everywhere  with  a  respect  and  attention  shown  only  to  the  most  distin- 
guished personages.  In  1888,  being  urged  by  the  RepubUcan  party  to 
allow  his  name  to  be  again  used  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  he  de- 
clined the  honor,  but  on  the  inauguration  of  President  Harrison,  he  ac- 
cepted again  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  Blaine's  display  of  diplomatic  statesmanship  in  the  Samoan  diffi- 
culty, his  firm  stand  upon  the  question  of  the  Bering  Sea  fisheries,  and 
his  important  services  in  connection  with  the  Pan-American  Congress  are 
still  fresh  in  the  public  mind.  Few  political  leaders  have  given  the  sub- 
ject of  protection  so  exhaustive  attention  as  he,  and  he  deservedly  ranks 
as  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  men  of  this  generation. 


BOIH  SIMS  OF  THE  TiEIFF  diSTIi. 


A  DUEL. 

FREE  TRADE-THE  RIGHT  HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE. 
PROTECTION— THE  HON.  JAMES  G.  BLAINE. 

ME.  GLADSTONE: 

I.   APOLOGY  FOR  THIS  ARTICLE. 

The  existing  difference  of  practice  between  America  and  Brit- 
ain with  respect  to  free  trade  and  protection  of  necessity  gives 
rise  to  a  kind  of  international  controversy  on  their  respective 
merits.  To  interfere  from  across  the  water  in  such  a  controversy 
is  an  act  which  may  wear  the  appearance  of  impertinence.  It 
is  primd  facie  an  intrusion  by  a  citizen  of  one  country 
into  the  domestic  affairs  of  another,  which  as  a  rule  must 
be  better  judged  of  by  denizens  than  by  foreigners.  Nay,  it 
may  even  seem  a  rather  violent  intrusion;  for  the  sincere  advocate 
of  one  of  the  two  systems  cannot  speak  of  what  he  deems  to  be  the 
demerits  of  the  other  otherwise  than  in  broad  and  trenchant  terms. 
In  this  case,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  something  of  reciprocal 
reproach  is  implied  in  the  glaring  contrast  between  the  legislation 
of  the  two  countries,  apart  from  any  argumentative  exposition  of 
its  nature.  And  where  should  an  Englishman  look  for  weapons 
to  be  used  against  protection,  or  an  American  for  weapons  to  be 
wielded  in  its  favor,  except  in  America  and  England  respectively  ? 

This  sentiment  received,  during  the  late  Presidential  struggle, 
a  lively  illustration  in  practice.  An  American  gentleman,  Mr. 
3 


20  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

N.  McKay,  of  New  York,  took,  according  to  the  proverb,  the 
hull  by  the  horns.  He  visited  Great  Britain,  made  what  he  con- 
sidered to  be  an  inspection  of  the  employments,  wages,  and  con- 
dition of  the  people,  and  reported  the  result  to  his  countrymen, 
while  they  were  warm  with  the  animation  of  the  national  contest, 
under  the  doleful  titles  of  *' Free-Trade  Toilers"  and  "  Starvation 
Wages  for  Men  and  Women."  He  was  good  enough  to  forward 
to  me  a  copy  of  his  most  interesting  tract,  and  he  did  me  the 
further  honor  to  address  to  me  a  letter  covering  the  pamphlet. 
He  challenged  an  expression  of  my  opinion  on  the  results  of  free 
trade  in  England  and  on  "  the  relative  value  of  free  trade  and 
protection  to  the  English-speaking  people." 

There  was  an  evident  title  thus  to  call  upon  me,  because  I  had, 
many  years  since,  given  utterance  to  an  opinion  then  and  now 
sincerely  entertained.  I  thought,  and  each  of  the  rolling  years 
teaches  me  more  and  more  fixedly  to  think,  that  in  international 
transactions  the  British  nation  for  the  present  enjoys  a  commer- 
cial primacy;  that  no  country  in  the  world  shows  any  capacity 
to  wrest  it  from  us,  except  it  be  America ;  that,  if  America  shall 
frankly  adopt  and  steadily  maintain  a  system  of  free  trade,  she 
will  by  degrees,  perhaps  not  slow  degrees,  outstrip  us  in  the  race, 
and  will  probably  take  the  place  which  at  present  belongs  to  us  ; 
but  that  she  will  not  injure  us  by  the  operation.  On  the  con- 
trary, she  will  do  us  good.  Her  freedom  of  trade  will  add  to  our 
present  commerce  and  our  present  wealth,  so  that  we  shall  be 
better  than  we  now  are.  But  while  we  obtain  this  increment, 
she  will  obtain  another  increment,  so  much  larger  than  ours  that 
it  will  both  cover  the  minus  quantity  which,  as  compared  with 
us,  she  at  present  exhibits  in  international  transactions,  and  also 
establish  a  positive  excess,  possibly  a  large  excess,  in  her  own 
favor. 

It  would  have  been  impertinent  in  me,  and  on  other  grounds 
impolitic,  to  accept  the  invitation  of  Mr.  McKay  while  the  Presi- 
dential contest  was  yet  pending.  But  all  the  agencies  in  that  great 
election  have  now  done  their  work,  and  protection  has  obtained 
her  victory.  Be  she  the  loveliest  and  most  fruitful  mother  of  tlie 
wealth  of  nations,  or  be  she  an  impostor  and  a  swindler,  distin- 
guished from  other  swindlers  mainly  by  the  vast  scale  of  her 
operations,  she  no  longer  stands  within  the  august  shadow  of  the 
election,  and  she  must  take  her  chance  in  the  arena  of  discussion 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  31 

as  a  common  combatant,  entitled  to  free  speecK  and  to  fair  treat- 
ment, but  to  nothing  more.  So  that  the  citizens  of  two  coun- 
tries long  friendly,  and  evidently  destined  to  yet  closer  friend- 
liness, may  now  calmly  and  safely  pursue  an  argument  which, 
from  either  of  the  opposing  points  of  view,  has  the  most  direct 
bearing  on  the  wealth,  comfort,  and  well-being  of  the  people  on 
both  sides  of  the  water. 

II.    AN  OLD  FRIEND   WITH   A   NEW  FACE. 

The  appeal  of  the  champion  whose  call  has  brought  me  into 
the  field  is  very  properly  made  "  to  the  wage-earners  of  the  United 
States,"  He  exhibits  the  deplorable  condition  of  the  British 
workingman,  and  asks  whether  our  commercial  supremacy  is  not 
upheld  at  his  expense.  The  constant  tenor  of  the  argument  is 
this  :  high  wages  by  protection,  low  wages  by  free  trade.  It 
is  even  as  the  recurring  burden  of  a  song.  Now,  it  sometimes 
happens  that,  while  we  listen  to  a  melody  presented  to  us  as  new, 
the  idea  gradually  arises  in  the  mind,  "  I  have  heard  this  before." 
And  I  can  state  with  truth  that  I  have  heard  this  very  same 
melody  before  ;  nay,  that  I  am  familiar  with  it.  It  comes  to  us 
now  with  a  pleasant  novelty  ;  but  once  upon  a  time  we  British 
folk  were  surfeited,  nay,  almost  bored  to  death,  with  it.  It  is 
simply  the  old  song  of  our  squires,  which  they  sang  with  perfect 
assurance  to  defend  the  Corn  Laws,  first  from  within  the  fortress 
of  an  unreformed  Parliament,  and  then  for  a  good  many  years 
more,  with  their  defences  fatally  and  fast  crumbling  before  their 
eyes,  after  Parliament  had  been  reformed.  Mr.  McKay  and 
Protection,  now  made  vocal  in  him,  terrify  the  American  work- 
man by  threatening  him  with  the  wages  of  his  British  comrade, 
precisely  as  the  English  landlord  coaxed  our  rural  laborers,  when 
we  used  to  get  our  best  wheats  from  Dantzig,  by  exhibiting  the 
starvation  wages  of  the  Polish  peasant. 

But  there  is  also  a  variation  in  the  musical  phrase.  Our  low 
wages,  it  is  said,  form  the  basis  of  our  cheap  production.  So  it 
is  desired,  as  Mr.  McKay  apprises  me,  to  **  get  some  relief  from 
the  American  government";  by  which  I  understand  that  he  calls 
for  more  protection.  For  example  :  I  have  learned  that  turfs  are 
occasionally  sent  from  Ireland  to  America  to  supply  the  Irish 
immigrant  with  a  rude  memorial  of  the  country  he  was  torced  to 
leave,  but  has  not  ceased  to  love  ;  and  that  these  turfs  are  dear  to 


22  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

his  affectionate  patriotism,  and  have  been  bought  by  him  at  prices 
relatively  high.  But  they  are  charged  (I  am  told)  as  unenu- 
merated  articlea  at  fifteen  per  cent,  on  the  value.  I  hope  there  is 
no  strong  turbary  interest  in  America,  for  I  gather  that,  to  secure 
high  wages  to  the  diggers,  you  would  readily,  and  quite  con- 
sistently, raise  this,  say,  to  five-and-twenty.  The  protective 
argument,  however,  at  this  stage  rather  is,  How  can  the  capitalist 
engaged  in  manufacture  compete  with  his  British  rival,  who  ob- 
tains labor  at  half  the  price  ?  But  this  also  is  to  us  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  repetition  of  an  old  and  familiar  strain. 
The  argument  is  so  plausible  that,  in  the  early  days  of  our  well- 
known  Corn-Law  controversy,  it  commended  itself  even  to  some 
of  the  first  champions  of  Repeal.  They  pointed  out  that  during  the 
great  French  war  the  trade  of  our  manufacturers  was  secured  by 
our  possession  of  the  sea  ;  but  that,  when,  by  the  establishment  of 
peace,  that  became  an  open  highway,  it  was  impossible  for  our 
manufacturers,  who  had  to  pay  their  workmen  wages  based  upon 
protection  prices  for  bread  as  the  first  necessary  of  life,  any  longer 
to  compete  with  the  cheap  bread  and  cheap  labor  of  the  continent. 
And,  in  truth,  they  could  show  that  their  trade  was  at  the  time, 
to  a  great  extent,  either  stationary  or  even  receding  These  argu- 
ments were  made  among  us,  in  the  alleged  interest  of  labor  and  of 
capital,  just  as  they  are  now  employed  by  you;  for  America  may  at 
present  be  said  to  diet  on  the  cast-off  reasonings  of  English  protec- 
tionism. They  were  so  specious  that  they  held  the  field  until  the 
genius  of  Cobden  recalled  us  from  conventional  phrases  to  natural 
laws,  and  until  a  series  of  bad  harvests  (about  1838-41)  had 
shown  the  British  workman  that  what  enhanced  the  price  of  his 
bread  had  no  corresponding  power  to  raise  the  rate  of  his  wages, 
but  distinctly  tended  to  depress  them. 

Let  me  now  mark  the  exact  point  to  which  we  have  advanced. 
Like  a  phonograph  of  Mr.  Edison,  the  American  Protectionist 
simply  repeats  on  his  side  of  the  Atlantic  what  has  been  first  and 
often,  and  long  ago,  said  on  ours.  Under  protection  our  wages 
were,  on  the  whole,  higher  than  those  of  the  Continent.  Under 
protection  American  wages  are  higher  than  those  of  Great 
Britain.  We  then  argued,  post  hoc,  ergo  propter  lioc.  He  now 
argues  (just  listen  to  his  phonograph),  post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc. 
But  our  experience  has  proceeded  a  stage  further  than  that  of 
the  American  people.     Despite  the  low  wages  of  the  Continent, 


PREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  23 

we  broke  down  every  protective  wall  and  flooded  the  country  (so 
the  phrase  then  ran)  with  the  corn  and  the  commodities  of  the 
whole  world ;  with  the  corn  of  America  first  and  foremost.  But 
did  our  rates  of  wages  thereupon  sink  to  the  level  of  the  Con- 
tinent ?  Or  did  it  rise  steadily  and  rapidly  to  a  point  higher 
than  had  been  ever  known  before  ? 

That  the  American  rate  of  wages  is  higher  than  ours  I  con- 
cede. Some,  at  least,  of  the  causes  of  this  most  gratifying  fact  I 
shall  endeavor  to  acknowledge.  My  enumeration  may  be  sufficient 
or  may  be  otherwise.  Whether  it  be  exhaustive  or  not,  the  facts 
will  of  themselves  tend  to  lay  upon  protectionism  the  burden  of 
establishing,  by  something  more  than  mere  concomitancy,  a 
causal  relation  between  commercial  restraint  and  wages  relatively 
high.  But  what  if,  besides  doing  this,  I  show  (and  it  is  easy)  that 
wages  which  may  have  been  partially  and  relatively  high  under 
protection,  have  become  both  generally  and  absolutely  higher, 
and  greatly  higher,  under  free  trade  ? 

That  protection  may  coexist  with  high  wages,  that  it  may  not 
of  itself  neutralize  all  the  gifts  and  favors  of  nature,  that  it  does 
not  as  a  matter  of  course  make  a  rich  country  into  a  poor  one — 
all  this  may  be  true,  but  is  nothing  to  the  point.  The  true  ques- 
tion is  whether  protection  offers  us  the  way  to  the  maximum  of 
attainable  wage.  This  can  only  be  done  by  raising  to  the  ut-i 
most  attainable  height  the  fund  out  of  which  wages  and  profits 
alike  are  drawn.  If  its  tendency  is  not  to  increase,  but  to  dimin- 
ish, that  fund,  then  protection  is  a  bar  to  high  wages,  not  their 
cause  ;  and  is,  therefore,  the  enemy,  not  the  friend,  of  the  classes 
on  whose  wages  their  livelihood  depends.  This  is  a  first  outline 
of  the  propositions  which  I  shall  endeavor  to  unfold  and  to  bring 
home. 

III.    BRITISH   WAGES. 

Mr.  McKay  greatly  relied  upon  a  representation  which  he  has 
given  as  to  the  rate  of  wages  in  England.  It  is  only  incidental  to 
the  main  discussion,  for  the  subject  of  this  paper  is  not  England, 
but  America.  Yet  it  evidently  requires  to  be  dealt  with;  and  I 
shall  deal. with  it  broadly,  though  briefly,  asking  leave  to  contest 
alike  the  inferences  and  the  facts  which  he  presents.  My  con- 
tention on  this  head  will  be  two-fold.  First,  he  has  been  misled  as 
to  the  actual  rate  of  wages  in  England.  Secondly,  the  question  is 
not  whether  that  rate  is  lower  than  the  rate  in  America,  nor  even 


34  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

whether  the  American  workman  (and  this  is  a  very  different  mat- 
ter) is  always  better  off  than  the  workman  in  England.  It  is. 
What  are  English  wages  now  under  free  trade,  compared  with 
what  they  formerly  were  under  protection  ? 

And  first,  as  to  the  actual  rates  in  particular  cases  to  which  he 
has  referred,  I  must  draw  a  line  between  the  case  of  the  English 
chain-makers,  on  which  he  has  dwelt,  and  the  case  of  the  great 
coal  industry,  of  which  he  has  taken  the  town  of  Wigan  as  a 
sample. 

In  an  old  society  like  this,  with  an  indefinite  variety  of  occu- 
pations, there  are  usually  some  which  lie,  as  it  were,  out  of  the 
stream,  and  which  represent  the  traditions  of  a  former  time.,  or 
peculiarities  of  circumstance,  not  yet  touched  by  that  quickening 
breath  of  freedom  in  trade  and  labor  under  which  I  shall  show  it 
to  be  unquestionable  that  an  overwhelming  proportion  of  our 
population  have  found  their  way  to  a  great  and,  indeed,  extraor- 
dinary improvement.  In  particular,  we  may  expect  to  find  a 
lamentable  picture  in  those  cases  where  hand  labor  is  destined  to 
be  supplanted  by  machinery,  but  where  the  transition,  though 
at  hand,  has  not  yet  taken  effect.  These  chain-makers  are  repre- 
sented as  earning,  man  and  wife  together,  four  dollars  per 
week.  Small  as  is  this  amount,  it  would  not  have  drawn  on  that 
account  the  least  notice  in  the  days  when  humanity  took  its 
standards  from  the  facts  supplied  by  protection.  Under  the 
present  circumstances,  it  happens  to  have  attracted  marked  atten- 
tion in  Parliament,  and,  elsewhere,  and  I  believe  that  it  is  at 
this  very  time  the  subject  of  public  inquiry.  But  the  true 
answer  to  the  argument  from  isolated  cases  is  that  there  is  no 
relation  whatever  between  the  condition  of  this  or  that  small, 
antiquated,  and  solitary  employment,  and  the  general  condition 
of  our  wage-earning  population. 

It  is  otherwise,  however,  with  reference  to  Wigan.  Em- 
ployment at  this  important  centre  is  subject  to  the  economical 
currents  of  the  time,  and  undoubtedly  the  facts  it  may  exhibit 
must  be  held  to  bear  upon  the  general  question  of  the  condition 
of  the  people.  But  it  so  happens  that  I  have  the  best  means  of 
obtaining  information  about  Wigan,  and  I  had  better  state  at 
once  that  I  am  at  issue  with  Mr.  McKay's  report  upon  the 
facts.  The  statements  made  by  him  have  doubtless  done  their 
work  ;  but  it  is  still  a  matter  of  interest  to  clear  up  the  truth. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  25 

The  steeple,  of  which  he  declares  that  the  parish  church  has  been 
denuded,  never,  as  I  am  assured,  had  any  existence.  The  tempera- 
ture in  Rosebridge  mine,  which  he  states  at  ninety-three  degrees, 
does  not  exceed  seventy  degrees.  The  wages  of  men  are  not 
three  shillings  a  day,  but  vary  from  a  minimum  of  three  shillings 
and  threepence  up  to  the  sum  of  four  shillings  and  sixpence. 
The  minimum  for  women  on  the  bank  is  not  one  shilling,  but 
one  shilling  and  sixpence,  and  the  maximum  not  one  shilling 
and  ninepence,  but  two  shillings.  Yards  such  as  he  estimates  at 
forty-five  inches  wide  are  forbidden  by  by-laws  of  the  Local  Board 
issued  in  1883,  and  similar  laws  issued  in  1-860  require  that 
cottages  shall  have  an  open  space,  at  the  rear  or  side,  of  not  less 
than  one  hundred  and  fifty  square  feet.  Barrows  are  not  in  use 
for  wheeling  coal  underground.  In  a  word,  so  far  as  the  only  place 
I  have  been  able  to  make  the  subject  of  examination  is  concerned, 
the  accuracy  of  the  supposed  statements  of  fact  is  contested  all 
along  the  line  by  persons  on  the  spot,  whom  I  know  to  be  of  the 
highest  trustworthiness  and  authority. 

We  are,  however,  happily  in  a  condition  to  bring  upon  the  arena 
evidence  of  far  higher  moment  than  assertions  or  denials  founded 
upon  a  few  rapid  glances  of  a  traveller,  even  had  he  not  been  laden 
with  a  foregone  conclusion,  or  than  denials  offered  against  those 
assertions.  So  far  as  Great  Britain  is  concerned,  it  is  obvious 
enough  to  what  point  we  should  address  our  inquiries,  if  they 
are  to  be  of  any  serious  force  in  determining  by  results  the  con- 
troversy upon  the  respective  merits  of  protection  and  free  trade. 
We  must  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  general  rate  of  wages  now,  in 
comparison  with  what  it  was  under  the  protective  system,  and 
with  constant  regard  to  the  cost  of  living  as  exhibited  by  the  prices 
of  commodities. 

And,  in  order  to  try  the  question  for  this  country  at  large, 
whether  free  trade  has  been  a  curse  or  a  blessing  to  the  people  who 
inhabit  it,  I  shall  repair  at  once  to  our  highest  authority,  Mr. 
Giffen,  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  whose  careful  and  comprehensive 
disquisitions  are  before  the  world,  and  are  known  to  command, 
in  a  very  high  degree,  the  public  confidence.  He  supplies  us 
with  tables*  which  compare  the  wages  of  1833  with  those  of 
1883   in  such  a  way  as  to  speak  for  the  principal  branches  of 

*  Profrress  of  the  Working  (Masses  During  tho  Last  Half  Century:  In  "  Basays  on 
Finance."    London.    1886.    P.  372. 


26  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

industry,  with  the  exception  of  agricultural  labor.  The  wages  of 
miners,  we  learn,  have  increased  in  Staffordshire  (which  almost  cer- 
tainly is  the  mining  district  of  lowest  increment)  by  50  per  cent.  In 
the  great  exportable  manufactures  of  Bradford  and  Huddersfield, 
the  lowest  augmentations  are  20  and  30  per  cent.,  and  in  other 
branches  they  rise  to  50,  83, 100,  and  even  to  150  and  160  per 
cent.  The  quasi-domestic  trades  of  carpenters,  bricklayers,  and 
masons,  in  the  great  marts  of  Glasgow  and  Manchester,  show  a 
mean  increase  of  63  per  cent,  for  the  first,  65  per  cent,  for  the 
second,  and  47  per  cent,  for  the  third.  The  lowest  weekly  wage 
named  for  an  adult  is  twenty-two  shillings  (as  against  seventeen 
shillings  in  1833),  and  the  highest  thirty-six  shillings.  But 
it  is  the  relative  rate  with  which  we  have  to  do ;  and, 
as  the  American  writer  appears  to  contemplate  with  a  pe- 
culiar dread  the  effect  of  free  trade  upon  shipping,  I  further 
quote  Mr.  Giffen  on  the  monthly  wages  of  seamen*  in  1833 
and  1883  in  Bristol,  Glasgow,  Liverpool,  and  London.  The 
percentage  of  increase,  since  we  have  passed  from  the  protective 
system  of  the  Navigation  Law  into  free  trade,  is  in  Bristol  66 
per  cent.,  in  Glasgow  55  per  cent.,  in  Liverpool  (for  different 
classes)  from  25  per  cent,  to  70  per  cent.,  and  in  London  from 
45  per  cent,  to  69  per  cent.  Mr.  Giffen  has  given  the  figures  in 
all  the  cases  where  he  could  be  sufficiently  certain  of  exactitude. 
No  such  return,  at  once  exact  and  comprehensive,  can  be  sup- 
plied in  the  case  of  the  rural  workman.  But  here  the  facts  are 
notorious.  We  are  assured  that  there  has  been  an  universal  rise 
(somewhat  checked,  I  fear,  by  the  recent  agricultural  distress), 
which  Caird  and  other  authorities  place  at  60  per  cent.f  Mr. 
Giffen  apparently  concurs;  and,  so  far  as  my  own  personal 
sphere  of  observation  reaches,  I  can  with  confidence  confirm  the 
estimate  and  declare  it  to  be  moderate.  Together  with  this  in- 
crease of  pay  there  has  been  a  general  diminution  of  the  hours 
of  work,  which  Mr.  Giffen  places  at  one-fifth.  J  If  we  make 
this  correction  upon  the  comparative  table,  we  shall  find  that  the 
cases  are  very  few  in  which  the  increment  does  not  range  as  high 
as  from  50  and  towards  100  per  cent. 

In  a  later  essay,  of  January,  1886,§  Mr.  Giffen  touches  the 
case  of  the  unskilled  laborer.  He  observes  that  the  aggregate 
proportion  of  unskilled  to  skilled  labor  has  diminished — a  fact 

•  p.  373.    *  p.  575.    t  Ibid.    §  Pp.  424,  425. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  27 

which  of  itself  forcibly  exhibits  the  advance  of  the  laboring 
population  as  a  whole.  I  will  not  enter  upon  details  ;  but  his 
general  conclusion  is  this :  the  improvement  is  from  70  to  90  per 
cent,  in  the  wages  of  unskilled  non-agricultural  labor.  And 
again,  comparing  the  laborer  with  the  capitalist  between  1843 
and  1883,  he  estimates  that,  while  the  income  from  capital  has 
risen  in  this  country  from  190  to  400  millions,  or  by  210  per 
cent.,  the  working-class  income,  below  the  standard  which  en- 
tails liability  to  income-tax,  has  risen  from  235  millions  to  620, 
or  at  the  rate  of  160  per  cent.  Within  the  same  period  the 
prices  of  the  main  articles  of  popular  consumption  have  not  in- 
creased, but  have  certainly  declined.*  The  laborer's  charges,  except 
for  his  abode,  have  actually  diminished  as  a  whole.  For  his  larger 
house-rent  he  has  a  better  house.  To  the  government  he  pays 
much  less  than  he  did,  and  from  the  government  he  gets  much 
more;  and  "the  increase  of  his  money  wages  corresponds  to  a  real 
gain."  f 

Such, then,  have  been  the  economical  results  of  free  trade  as  com- 
pared with  protection.  Of  its  political,  moral,  and  social  results, 
at  least  so  far  as  they  regard  the  masses  of  the  people,  an  account 
in  no  way  less  satisfactory  could  be  given,  were  this  the  proper 
occasion  for  entei'ing  on  the  subject.  If  it  be  said  that  the  tale 
I  have  told  is  insufficient,  and  that  wages  ought  still  to  rise,  this 
may  be  so  ;  and  rise  I  hope  they  will ;  but  protection  had  no  such 
tale  to  tell  at  all.  For  the  working  population  at  large  it  meant 
stagnation,  depression,  in  many  cases  actual  and  daily  hunger  and 
thirst,  in  some  unquestionable  and  even  gross  degradation.  I  will 
venture  to  say  that,  taking  the  case  as  a  whole,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  match  in  history  the  picture  which  Great  Britain  now  presents 
of  progress,  achieved  mainly  through  wise  laws,  from  stinted 
means  and  positive  want  towards  comfort  and  abundance  for  the 
people. 

IV.    PROTECTION   VIEWED   IN   ITS   FIRST  ASPECTS. 

With  a  view  to  presenting  the  argument  for  leaving  trade  to 
the  operation  of  natural  laws  in  the  simplest  manner,  I  shall  be- 
gin with  some  postulates  which  I  suppose  to  be  incapable  of  dis- 
pute. 

International  commerce  is  based,  not  upon  arbitrary  or  fanci- 
ful considerations,  but  upon  the  unequal  distribution  among  men 

•  p.  405.    t  Pp.  382.  333. 


28  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

and  regions  of  aptitudes  to  produce  the  several  commodities 
which  are  necessary  or  useful  for  the  sustenance,  comfort,  and 
advantage  of  human  life. 

If  every  country  produced  all  commodities  with  exactly  the 
same  degree  of  facility  or  clieapness,  it  would  be  contrary  to  com- 
mon-sense to  incur  the  charge  of  sending  them  from  one  country 
to  another. 

But  the  inequalities  are  so  great  that  (for  example)  region  A 
can  supply  region  B  with  many  articles  of  food,  and  region  B 
can  in  return  supply  region  A  with  many  articles  of  clothing,  at 
such  rates  that,  although  in  each  case  the  charge  of  transmission 
has  of  necessity  been  added  to  the  first  cost,  the  respective  articles 
can  be  sold  after  importation  at  a  lower  rate  than  if  they  were 
home-grown  or  home-manufactured  in  the  one  or  the  other  country 
respectively. 

The  relative  cost,  in  each  case,  of  production  and  transmission, 
as  compared  with  domestic  production,  supplies,  while  all  remain 
untrammelled  by  state  law,  a  rule,  motive,  or  mainspring  of  dis- 
tribution which  may  be  termed  natural. 

The  argument  of  the  Free-Trader  is  that  the  legislator  ought 
never  to  interfere,  or  only  to  interfere  so  far  as  imperative  fiscal 
necessity  may  require  it,  with  this  natural  law  of  distribution. 

All  interference  with  it  by  a  government  in  order  to  encourage 
some  dearer  method  of  production  at  home,  in  preference  to  a 
cheaper  method  of  production  abroad,  may  fairly  be  termed 
artificial.  And  every  such  interference  means  simply  a  diminu- 
tion of  the  national  wealth.  If  region  A  grows  corn  at  home  for 
fifty  shillings  with  which  region  B  can  supply  it  at  forty,  and  region 
B  manufactures  cloth  at  twenty  shillings  with  which  region  A  can 
supply  it  at  fifteen,  the  national  wealth  of  each  is  diminished  by  the 
ten  and  the  five  shillings  respectively. 

And  the  capitalists  and  laborers  in  each  of  these  countries  have 
80  much  the  less  to  divide  into  their  respective  shares,  in  that  com- 
petition between  capital  and  labor  which  determines  the  distribu- 
tion between  them  of  the  price  brought  in  the  market  by  com- 
modities. 

In  my  view,  and  I  may  say  for  my  countrymen  in  our  view, 
protection,  however  dignified  by  the  source  from  which  it  pro- 
ceeds, is  essentially  an  invitation  to  waste,  promulgated  with  the 
authority  of  law.  It  may  be  more  violent  and  prohibitory,  or  it  m^ 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  29 

be  less;  but,  up  to  the  point  to  which  it  goes,  it  is  a  promise  given  to 
dear  production  to  shield  it  against  the  competition  of  cheap  pro- 
duction, or  given  to  dearer  production  to  hold  it  harmless  against 
cheaper;  to  secure  for  it  a  market  it  could  not  otherwise  hold,  and 
to  enable  it  to  exact  from  the  consumer  a  price  which  he  would  not 
otherwise  pay. 

Protection  says  to  a  producer.  Grow  this  or  manufacture  that 
at  a  greater  necessary  outlay,  though  we  might  obtain  it  more 
cheaply  from  abroad,  where  it  can  be  produced  at  a  smaller  neces- 
sary outlay.  This  is  saying,  in  other  words,  waste  a  certain 
amount  of  labor  and  of  capital;  and  do  not  be  afraid,  for  the  cost 
of  your  waste  shall  be  laid  on  the  shoulders  of  a  nation  which  is 
well  able  to  bear  it.  So  much  for  the  waste  unavoidably  attach- 
ing to  dearness  of  production.  But  there  are  other  and  yet  worse 
descriptions  of  waste,  as  to  which  I  know  not  whether  America 
suffers  greatly  from  them,  but  I  know  that  in  this  country  we 
suffered  from  them  grievously  under  the  sway  of  protection. 
When  the  barrier  erected  by  a  protective  duty  is  so  high  that  no 
foreigner  can  overleap  it,  that  duty  enables  the  home  manufact- 
urer not  only  to  charge  a  high  price,  but  to  force  on  the  con- 
sumer a  bad  article.  Thus,  with  an  extravagant  duty  on  foreign 
corks,  we  had  for  our  own  use  the  worst  corks  in  Europe.  And 
yet  again,  protection  causes  waste  of  another  kind  in  a  large  class 
of  cases.  Suppose  the  natural  disadvantages  of  the  home  pro- 
ducer to  equal  15  per  cent.,  but  the  protective  duty  to  be 
30.  But  cheapness  requires  minute  care,  economy,  and  de- 
spatch at  all  the  stages  through  which  production  has  to  pass. 
This  minute  care  and  thrift  depend  mainly  on  the  pressure  of  com- 
petition. There  were  among  us,  and  there  may  be  elsewhere, 
many  producers  whom  indolence  tempts  to  neglect;  who  are  not 
sufficiently  drawn  to  resist  this  inertia  by  the  attraction  of 
raising  profit  to  a  maximum;  for  whom  the  prospect  of  advan- 
tage is  not  enough  without  the  sense  of  necessity,  and  whom 
nothing  can  spur  to  a  due  nimbleness  of  movement  except  the 
fear  of  not  being  able  to  sell  their  articles.  In  the  case  I  have 
supposed,  the  second  15  per  cent,  is  a  free  margin  whereupon 
this  indolence  may  disport  itself  :  the  home  producer  is  not  only 
covered  for  what  he  wastes  through  necessity,  but  for  what  he 
wastes  from  negligence  or  choice;  and  his  fellow-countrymen,  the 
public,  have  to  pay  alike  for  both.  We  suffered  grievously  from  this 


30  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

in  England,  for  oftentimes  the  rule  of  the  producer  is,  or  was,  to 
produce  not  as  well  as  he  can,  but  as  badly  as  he  can,  and  as  well 
only  as  he  must.  And  hai:)py  are  you  if,  through  keener  energy 
or  more  troublesome  conscience  in  production,  you  have  no  sim- 
ilar suffering  in  America. 

If  protection  could  be  equably  distributed  all  round,  then  it 
would  be  fair  as  between  class  and  class.  But  it  cannot  possibly 
be  thus  distributed  in  any  country  until  we  have  discovered  a 
country  which  will  not  find  its  interest  in  exporting  some  com- 
modity or  other.  For  the  price  of  that  commodity  at  home  must  be 
determined  by  its  price  in  foreign  or  unprotected  markets,  and 
therefore,  even  if  protective  duties  are  inscribed  on  the  statute- 
book  at  home,  their  effect  must  remain  absolutely  null,  so  far 
as  this  particular  article  is  concerned.  It  is  beyond  human  wit 
and  power  to  secure  to  the  cotton-grower,  or  to  the  grower  of 
wheat  or  maize  in  the  United  States,  the  tenth  part  of  a  cent  per 
bale  or  per  bushel  beyond  what  the  price  in  the  markets  of 
export  will  allow  to  him.  If,  under  these  circumstances,  he  is 
required  to  pay  to  the  iron-master  of  Pennsylvania,  or  to  the 
manufacturer  at  Lowell,  an  extra  price  on  his  implements  or  on 
his  clothing,  for  which  he  can  receive  no  compensation  whatever, 
such  extra  price  is  at  first  sight  much  like  robbery  perpetrated 
by  law. 

If  such  be  the  ugly  physiognomy  presented,  at  the  present  stage 
of  our  inquiry,  by  this  ancient  and  hoary-headed  wizard  in  relation 
to  the  claim  for  equal  dealing  between  class  and  class,  the  pre- 
sumptive case  is  not  a  whit  better  in  regard  to  the  aggregate 
wealth  of  the  nation.  Wealth  is  accumulation  ;  and  the  aggre- 
gate of  that  accumulation  dejiends  upon  the  net  surplus  left  by 
the  prices  of  industrial  products  after  defraying  out  of  them  the 
costs  of  production.  To  make  this  surplus  large  is  to  raise 
national  wealth  to  its  maximum.  It  is  largest  when  we  produce 
what  we  can  produce  cheapest.  It  is  diminished,  and  the  nation 
is  so  far  impoverished,  whenever  and  wherever  and  to  whatevei 
extent,  under  the  cover  of  protective  laws,  men  are  induced  to 
produce  articles  leaving  a  smaller  surplus  instead  of  articles 
leaving  a  larger  one.  But  such  is  the  essence  of  protection.  In 
England  (speaking  roughly)  it  made  us  produce  more  wheat  at 
high  prices  instead  of  more  tissues  at  low  prices.  In  America 
it  makes  you  produce  more  cloth  and  more  iron  at  high  prices 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  81 

instead  of  more  cereals  and  more  cotton  at  low  prices.  And 
your  contention  is  that  by  making  production  thus  costly  you 
make  wages  high.  To  this  question  let  us  pass  onwards  ;  yet  not 
without  leaving  behind  us  certain  results  which  I  think  you  will 
find  it  hard  to  attack,  unless  it  be  in  flank  and  rear.  Such  as 
these :  First,  that  extra  price  imposed  on  class  A  for  the  benefit 
of  class  B,  without  compensation,  is  robbery,  and  robbery  not 
rendered  (in  the  abstract)  more  respectable  because  the  state  is 
the  culprit.  Secondly,  that  protection  means  dear  production, 
and  dear  production  means,  pro  tanto,  national  impoverishment. 

But  the  view  of  the  genuine  Protectionist  is  the  direct  opposite 
of  all  this.  I  understand  his  contention  to  be  that  protection  is 
(as  I  should  say  freedom  is)  a  mine  of  wealth  ;  that  a  greater  ag- 
gregate profit  results  from  what  you  would  call  keeping  labor  and 
capital  at  home  than  from  letting  them  seek  employment 
wherever  in  the  whole  world  they  can  find  it  most  economically. 
But  if  this  really  is  so,  if  there  be  this  inborn  fertility  in  the 
principle  itself,  why  are  the  several  States  of  the  Union  pre- 
cluded from  applying  it  within  their  own  respective  borders  ? 
If  the  aggregate  would  be  made  richer  by  this  internal  applica- 
tion of  protection  to  the  parts,  why  is  it  not  so  applied?  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  country  as  a  whole  would  by  this  device  be 
made  not  richer,  but  poorer,  through  the  interference  with  the 
natural  laws  of  production,  then  how  is  it  that  by  similar  inter- 
ference the  aggregate  of  the  States,  the  great  commonweath  of 
America,  can  be  made,  in  its  general  balance-sheet,  not  poorer,  but 
richer  ? 

What  is  the  value  of  this  argument  about  keeping  capital  at 
home,  by  means  of  protection,  which,  but  for  protection,  would 
find  its  way  abroad  ?  Tlie  contention  seems  to  be  this  :  capital 
which  could  be  most  profitably  employed  abroad  ought  by  legal 
inducement  to  be  inveigled  into  remaining  here,  in  order  that  it 
may  be  loss  profitably  employed  at  home.  Our  object  ought  to  be, 
not  to  pursue  those  industries  in  which  the  return  is  the  largest 
when  compared  with  the  outlay,  but  to  detain  in  this  country  the 
largest  quantity  of  capital  that  we  can.  Now,  here  I  really  must 
pursue  the  argument  into  its  hiding-places  by  testing  it  in  extremes. 
If  the  proper  object  for  the  legislator  is  to  keep  and  employ  in  his 
country  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  capital,  then  the  British 
"BaxWiknicni  {exempli  gratid)  ought  to  protect  not  only  wheat  but 


8S  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

pineapples.  A  pineapple  is  now  sold  in  London  for  eight  shillings 
sixpence,  which,  before  we  imported  that  majestic  fruit  from  tha 
tropics,  would  have  sold  for  two  pounds.  Why  not  protect  the 
grower  of  pineapples  at  two  pounds  by  a  duty  of  400  per  cent.  ? 
Do  not  tell  me  that  this  is  ridiculous.  It  is  ridiculous  upon  my 
principles  ;  but  upon  your  principles  it  is  allowable,  it  is  wise,  it  is 
obligatory — as  wise,  shall  I  say?  as  it  is  to  protect  cotton  fabrics  by 
a  duty  of  50  per  cent.  No  ;  not  as  wise  only,  but  even  more  wise, 
and  therefore  even  more  obligatory.  Because  according  to  this 
argument  we  ought  to  aim  at  the  production  within  our  own  limits 
of  those  commodities  which  require  the  largest  expenditure  of 
capital  and  labor  to  rear  them,  in  proportion  to  the  quantity  pro- 
duced ;  and  no  commodity  could  more  amply  fulfil  this  condition. 

If  protection  be,  as  its  champions  (or  victims)  hold,  in  itself  an 
economical  good,  then  it  holds  in  the  sphere  of  production  the 
same  place  as  belongs  to  truth  in  the  sphere  of  philosophy,  or  to 
virtue  in  the  sphere  of  morals.  In  this  case,  you  cannot  have  too 
much  of  it ;  so  that,  while  mere  protection  is  economical  good  in 
embryo,  such  good  finds  its  full  development  only  in  the  prohibition 
of  foreign  trade.  I  do  not  think  the  argument  would  be  unfair. 
It  really  'S  the  logical  corollary  of  all  your  utterances  on  the  high 
wages  wnicn  f<^i  you  believe)  protection  gives  in  America,  and  on 
the  ^o  w  wages  ,  nich  (as  you  believe)  our  free  trade,  now  impartially 
apT  lied  all  round,  inflicts  upon  England.  But  I  refrain  from 
pr  -ising  the  point,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  be  responsible  for 
urgiiiffan  argument  which  tends  to  drive  the  sincers  Protection- 
ist deeper  and  deeper  into,  not  the  mud,  but  (what  we  should  call) 
the  mire. 

But  now  I  suppose  the  answer  might  be  that  the  case  which  I 
have  put  is  an  extreme  case ;  and  that  arguments  are  not  well 
judged  by  their  extremes.  In  some  matters,  for  instance  in  mor^l 
matters,  where  virtue  often  resides  in  a  mean,  this  may  be  so. 
But  the  laws  of  economy,  which  we  are  now  handling,  approach 
much  more  to  the  laws  of  arithmetic  ;  and  if  your  reasoning  is 
that  we  ought  to  prefer,  among  the  fields  for  the  investment  of 
capital,  what  is  domestic  to  what  is  profitable,  it  is  at  least  for 
the  Protectionist  to  show — and  he  never  has  shown — why  it  is 
worth  a  nation's  while  on  this  account  to  lose  five  shillings  in  the 
pound,  but  not  to  lose  (say)  ten  or  fifteen. 

I  will,  however,  instead  of  relying  on  an  unanswered  chal- 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  33 

lenge,  push  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country.  I  shall  boldly  con- 
tend that  the  whole  of  this  doctrine — that  capital  should  be  tempted' 
into  an  area  of  dear  production  for  the  sake  or  under  the  notion 
of  keeping  it  at  home— is  a  delusion  from  top  to  bottom.  It  says 
to  the  capitalist.  Invest  (say)  a  million  dollars  in  mills  or  factories 
to  produce  yarn  and  cloth  which  we  could  obtain  more  cheaply 
from  abroad — that  is,  be  it  remembered,  which  could  be  produced 
abroad  and  sent  here  at  a  smaller  cost  of  production,  or,  in  other 
words,  with  less  waste  ;  for  all  expenditure  in  production  beyond 
the  measure  of  necessity — call  it  what  we  may — is  simple  waste. 
To  induce  him  to  do  this,  you  promise  that  he  shall  receive  an 
artificial  instead  of  a  natural  price ;  and,  in  order  that  the 
foreigner  may  not  drive  him  from  the  market,  this  artificial  price 
shall  be  saddled,  through  the  operation  of  an  import  duty,  upon  the 
competing  foreign  commodity  ;  not  in  order  to  meet  the  wants  of 
the  state,  which  is  the  sole  justifying  purpose  of  an  import  duty, 
but  in  order  to  cover  the  loss  on  wasteful  domestic  production, 
and  to  make  it  yield  a  profit.  And  all  this  in  order,  as  is  said, 
that  the  capitalist  may  be  induced  to  keep  his  capital  at  home. 
But,  in  America,  besides  the  jealously-palisaded  field  of  dear  pro- 
duction, there  is  a  vast  open  expanse  of  cheap  production, 
namely,  in  the  whole  mass  (to  speak  roughly)  of  the  agricultural 
products  of  the  country,  not  to  mention  such  gifts  of  the  earth  as 
its  mineral  oils.  In  raising  these,  the  American  capitalist  will 
find  the  demand  of  the  world  unexhausted,  however  he  may  in- 
crease the  supply.  Why,  then,  is  he  to  carry  his  capital  abroad 
when  there  is  profitable  employment  for  it  at  home?  If  protection 
is  necessary  to  keep  American  capital  at  home,  why  is  not  the  vast 
capital  now  sustaining  your  domestic  agriculture,  and  raising 
commodities  for  sale  at  free-trade  prices,  exported  to  other  coun- 
tries ?  Or,  conversely,  since  vast  capitals  find  an  unlimited  field 
for  employment  in  cheap  domestic  production  without  protection, 
it  is  demonstrated  that  protection  is  not  required  in  order  to 
keep  your  capital  at  home. 

No  adversary  will,  I  think,  venture  upon  answering  this  by 
saying  that  the  profits  are  larger  in  protected  than  in  unprotected 
industries.  First,  because  the  best  opinions  seem  to  testify  that 
in  your  protected  trades  profits  are  hard  pressed  by  wages — a  state 
of  things  very  likely  to  occur,  because  protection,  resting  upon  arti- 
ficial stimuhints,  tends  to  disturb  and  banish   all  natural  adjust- 


34  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

ment.  Bnt,  secondly,  there  can  hardly  be  any  votary  of  protoo- 
tion  sufficiently  Quixotic  to  contend  that  waste  ought  to  be  en- 
couraged in  economical  processes,  and  the  entire  community  taxed 
without  fiscal  necessity,  in  order  to  secure  to  a  particular  order  of 
capitalists  profits  higher  than  those  reaped  by  another  order — the 
public  claim  (such  you  hold  it)  of  both  resting  upon  exactly 
the  same  basis ;  namely,  this — that  they  keep  their  capitals  at 
home. 

There  is  yet  another  point  which  I  cannot  pass  without  notice. 
I  have  not  admitted  that  protection  keeps  at  home  any  capital 
which  would  otherwise  go  abroad.  But  I  now  for  the  moment 
accept  and  reason  upon  the  assumption  that  this  is  effected.  And  I 
ask — indeed,  by  the  force  of  argument  I  may  almost  require — you  to 
make  an  admission  to  me  which  is  of  the  most  serious  character; 
namely,  this :  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  capital  undoubtedly  kept  at 
home  by  protection,  not  for  the  purpose  of  dear  production,  which 
ift  partial  waste,  but  for  another  kind  of  waste,  which  is  sheer  and 
absolute  and  totally  uncompensated.  This  is  the  waste  incurred 
in  the  great  work  of  distributing  commodities.  If  the  price  of 
iron  or  of  cotton  cloth  is  increased  50  per  cent,  by  protection, 
then  the  capital  required  by  every  wholesale  and  every  retail  dis- 
tributor must  be  increased  in  the  same  proportion.  The  distrib- 
utor is  not  and  cannot  be,  in  his  auxiliary  and  essentially  domestic 
work,  protected  by  an  import  duty,  any  more  than  can  the 
scavenger  or  the  chimney-sweep.  The  import  duty  adds  to  the 
price  he  pays,  and  consequently  to  the  circulating  capital  which  he 
requires  in  order  to  carry  on  his  traffic;  but  it  adds  nothing  to  the 
rate  of  profit  which  he  receives,  and  nothing  whatever  to  the  em- 
ployment which  he  gives.  This  forced  increment  of  capital  sets 
in  motion  no  labor,  and  is  compelled  to  work  in  the  uncovered 
field  of  open  trade.  It  has  not  the  primd-facie  apology  (such  as 
that  apology  may  be)  which  the  iron-maker  or  the  mill-owner  may 
make,  that  he  is  employing  American  labor  which  would  not 
otherwise  be  employed.  If  the  waste  under  a  protective  duty  of 
50  per  cent,  be  a  waste  of  50  per  cent.,  the  waste  of  the  extra 
capital  required  in  distribution  is  a  waste  of  100  per  cent,  on  the 
cost  of  the  operation  ;  for  it  accomplishes  absolutely  nothing  on 
behalf  of  the  community  which  would  not  be  accomplished 
equally  if  the  commodity  were  50  per  cent,  less  in  price  ;  just  as 
the  postman    distributing    letters    at  a    shilling    performs    no 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  35 

better  or  other  service  than  the  postman  distributing  letters  at  a 
penny.  But  of  distributors  the  name  is  legion  :  they  constitute 
the  vast  army  of  the  wholesale  and  retail  tradesmen  of  a 
country,  with  all  the  wants  appertaining  to  them.  As  consumers, 
they  are  taxed  on  all  protected  commodities  ;  as  the  allies  of 
producers  in  the  business  of  distributing,  they  are  forced  to  d© 
with  more  capital  what  could  be  done  as  well  with  less. 

V.       EELATION"   BETWEElSr   PEOTECTIOif   AND   HIGH   WAGES. 

Admitting  that  we  see  in  the  United  States  a  coexistence  of 
high  wages  with  protection,  but  denying  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect  between  them,  I  may  be  asked  whether  I  am  prepared  to 
broaden  that  denial  into  an  universal  proposition  and  contend 
that  in  no  case  can  wages  be  raised  by  a  system  of  protection. 

My  answer  is  this  :  A  country  cannot  possibly  raise  its  aggre- 
gate wage  fund  by  protection,  but  must  inevitably  reduce  it.  It  is 
a  contrivance  for  producing  dear  and  for  selling  dear,  under  cover 
of  a  wall  or  fence  which  shuts  out  the  cheaper  foreign  article,  or 
handicaps  it  on  admission  by  the  imposition  of  a  heavy  fine.  Yet 
I  may  for  the  moment  allow  it  to  be  possible  that,  in  some  particu- 
lar trade  or  trades,  wages  may  be  raised  (at  the  expense  of  the 
community)  in  consequence  of  protection.  There  was  a  time 
when  America  built  ships  for  Great  Britain  ;  namely,  before  the 
American  Revolution.  She  now  imposes  heavy  duties  to  prevent 
our  building  ships  for  her.  Even  my  own  recollection  goes  back 
to  the  period,  between  sixty  and  seventy  years  ago,  when  by  far 
the  most,  and  also  the  best,  part  of  the  trade  between  us  was 
carried  in  American  bottoms.  Mr.  McKay  refers  in  his  letter  to 
a  period  before  the  War  when  she  could  compete  with  British 
labor,  but  when,  as  he  informs  us,  your  shipwright  was  paid  six 
shillings  a  day,  whereas  now  he  has  fourteen;  which  means  tha^ 
as  the  profits  of  capital  are  not  supposed  to  have  declined,  the 
community  pays  for  ships  more  than  twice  as  much  as  it  used  to 
pay,  and  your  ship-builders  do  a  small  trade  with  a  large  capital 
instead  of  doing  (as  before)  a  large  trade  with  a  (relatively)  small 
capital. 

I  will  not  now  stop   to  dilate  on  my  admiration    for  the 

resources  of  a  community  which  can  bear  to  indulge  in  these 

impoverishing  processes;  nor  even  to  ask  whether  the  shipwright 

in  the  small  trade  has  the  same  constancy  of  wage  as  he  had  ii^ 

3 


86  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

the  large  one,  or  whether  his  large  receipt  is  countervailed  by 
his  largo  outlay  on  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life.  But  I 
will  look  simply  to  the  question  whether  protection  in  this 
case  raises  wages.  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  it  is,  in  a  limited 
way,  impossible.  If  it  be  true,  the  steps  in  the  process  are,  I  con- 
ceive, as  follows  :  America  absolutely  requires  for  her  own  use  a 
certain  number  and  tonnage  of  vessels.  Congress  lays  such  duties 
upon  foreign  ships  and  materials  that  they  shall  not  be  obtained 
from  abroad  at  less  than  double  the  price  at  which  they  are  sold 
in  the  open  market.  Therefore  the  American  ship-builder  can 
force  his  countrymen  to  pay  him  any  sum,  not  exceeding  two 
prices,  for  his  commodity.  The  remaining  point  is  the  division 
of  the  amount  between  the  capitalist  and  the  workman.  That  is 
governed  by  the  general  state  of  the  labor  market  in  the  country. 
If  the  labor  market,  although  open  to  the  world,  is  insufficiently 
supplied,  then  the  wage-earner  may  possibly,  in  a  given  case, 
come  in  for  a  share  of  the  monopoly  price  of  ships.  If  the  hand- 
work be  one  requiring  a  long  apprenticeship  (so  to  call  it),  and 
thereby  impeding  the  access  of  domestic  competitors,  this  will 
augment  his  share.  Then  why  not  the  like,  some  one  will  ask, 
in  all  cases?  Because  the  community  in  the  given  case  pays  the 
price  of  the  monopoly — that  is  to  say,  throws  the  price  to  waste, 
and  because,  while  a  trader  in  a  multitude  of  commodities  may 
lose  upon  one  of  them,  and  yet  may  have  a  good  balance-sheet 
upon  the  whole,  he  must  not  and  cannot  lose  upon  them  all 
without  ceasing  to  be  a  trader;  and  a  nation,  with  respect  to  its 
aggregate  of  production,  is  as  a  single  trader. 

Without,  then,  absolutely  denying  it  to  be  possible  that  in 
some  isolated  and  exceptional  cases  there  may  be  a  relation 
between  protection  (and  all  protection,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  monop- 
oly) and  high  wages,  I  contend  that  to  refer  generally  the 
high  rate  of  wages  in  the  United  States  to  this  cause  would  be 
nothing  less  than  preposterous.  And  on  this  part  of  the  case  I  desire 
to  propound  what  appears  to  me  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  dilemma, 
with  some  curiosity  to  know  how  the  champions  of  protection  would 
be  disposed  to  meet  it.  Let  me  assume,  for  the  purpose  of  try- 
ing the  issue,  that  one-half  of  the  salable  products  of  the  United 
States  are  agricultural  and  one-half  manufactured,  and  that  the 
manufactured  moiety  are  covered  by  protection,  while  the  agricult- 
ural half,  since  they  are  articles  of  large  export,  bear  only  such 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  37 

a  price  as  is  assigned  to  them  by  foreign  competition  in  the  markets 
where  they  are  sold.  I  take  this  rough  estimate  for  the  sake  of 
simplicity,  and  in  the  same  view  I  overlook  the  fact  that  the  sugar 
which  you  grow  is  still  covered,  as  it  used  to  be  covered,  by  an 
operative  protection.  One-half^  then,  of  American  labor  enjoys 
protective  wages  ;  the  other  half  of  the  products  of  the  United 
States  is  furnished  by  mere  ''free-trade  toilers."  Now,  I 
want  to  ask  whether  the  wages  of  the  agricultural  half  are 
raised  by  the  existence  of  protective  laws  which  cover  the  arti- 
san half.  This  you  cannot  possibly  affirm,  because  it  is  an  ele- 
mentary fact  that  (given  the  quantity  of  labor  in  the  market) 
they  are  governed  by  the  prices  of  the  commodities  they  produce, 
and  that  those  prices  are  free-trade  prices.  You  have  '' free-trade 
toilers"  all  over  your  country,  and  by  their  side  you  have  protected 
artisans.  I  ask,  then,  next,  this  question  :  Is  the  remuneration 
of  the  "free-trade  toilers,"  all  things  taken  into  account,  equiva- 
lent to  that  of  the  protected  artisans  ?  If  it  is  not,  why  do  not 
the  agricultural  men  pass  over  into  the  provinces  of  demand  for 
manufacturing  and  mining  labor,  and,  by  augmenting  the  sup- 
ply, reduce  and  equalize  the  rate  ?  Which  is  like  asking.  How 
comes  it  that  a  man  is  content  with  one  loaf  when  two  are  offered 
him  ?  The  answer  would  be,  He  is  not  content :  whenever  he 
can,  he  takes  the  two  and  leaves  the  one.  It  follows  that  in  this 
case  there  exists  no  excess  of  wage  for  him  to  appropriate.  The 
loaf,  meaning  by  the  loaf  not  a  mere  money  rate,  but  that  money 
rate  together  with  all  its  incidents  of  all  kinds,  is  equal  as  be- 
tween the  protected  and  the  unprotected  laborer.  The  propor- 
tions of  the  two  kinds  of  labor  are  governed  in  the  long  run  (and 
perhaps  in  America  more  certainly  and  rapidly  than  anywhere 
else)  by  the  advantages  attaching  to  each  respectively.  In  other 
words,  the  free-trade  wages  are  as  good  as  the  protected  wages; 
and  (apart  from  small  and  exceptional  cases)  the  idea  that  pro- 
tection raises  the  rate  of  wages  on  any  large  scale  or  in  any  open 
field  is  an  illusion. 

But  I  proceed  to  consider  the  vast  exceptional  advantages 
which  as  a  country  the  United  States  enjoy  ;  which  enable  them 
to  bear  the  process  of  depletion  that,  through  the  system  of  pro- 
tection, it  is  their  pleasure  to  undergo,  and  which  for  them  cause 
the  question  to  be  one  not  of  absolute  retrogression,  but  only  of 
hampered  and  retarded  progress. 


38  BOTH  STDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

VI.     ON    THE   REASONS  WHY    PROTECTION    ONLY    INJURES,    AND 
DOES   NOT   RUIN,   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

I  hold  that  dear  production,  even  if  compensated  to  the  pro- 
ducer by  high  price,  is  a  wasteful  and  exhausting  process.  I  may 
still  be  asked  for  a  detailed  answer  to  the  question,  *'  How,  then,  is 
it  that  America,  which,  as  you  say,  makes  enormous  waste  by 
protection,  nevertheless  outstrips  all  other  countries  in  the  rapid 
accumulation  of  her  wealth?"  To  which  ray  general  answer  is 
that  the  case  is  like  that  of  an  individual  who,  with  wasteful 
expenditure,  has  a  vast  fortune,  such  as  to  leave  him  a  large  ex- 
cess of  receipts.  But  for  his  waste  that  excess  would  be  larger 
still. 

I  will,  then,  proceed  to  set  forth  some  of  the  causes  which,  by 
giving  exceptional  energy  and  exceptional  opportunity  to  the 
work  of  production  in  America,  seem  to  allow  (in  homely  phrase) 
of  her  making  ducks  and  drakes  of  a  large  portion  of  what  ought 
to  be  her  accumulations,  and  yet,  by  virtue  of  the  remainder 
of  them,  to  astonish  the  world. 

1.  Let  me  observe,  first,  that  America  produces  an  enormous 
mass  of  cotton,  cereals,  meat,  oils,  and  other  commodities,  which 
are  sold  in  the  unsheltered  market  of  the  world  at  such  prices  as 
it  will  yield.  The  producers  are  fined  for  the  benefit  of  the  pro- 
tected interests,  and  receive  nothing  in  return  ;  but  they  obtain  for 
their  country,  as  well  as  for  the  world,  the  whole  advantage  of  a 
vast  natural  trade — that  is  to  say,  a  trade  in  which  production  is 
carried  on  at  a  minimum  cost  in  capital  and  labor  as  compared 
with  what  the  rest  of  the  world  can  do. 

2.  America  invites  and  obtains  in  a  remarkable  degree  from 
all  the  world  one  of  the  great  elements  of  production,  without 
tax  of  any  kind — namely,  capital. 

3.  While  securing  to  the  capitalist  producer  a  monopoly  in  the 
protected  trades,  she  allows  all  the  world  to  do  its  best,  by  a  free 
immigration,  to  prevent  or  qualify  any  corresponding  monopoly 
in  the  class  of  workmen. 

4.  She  draws  upon  a  bank  of  natural  resources  so  vast  that  it 
easily  bears  those  deductions  of  improvidence  which  simply  pre- 
vent the  results  from  being  vaster  still. 

Let  me  now  mention  some  at  least  among  those  elements  of 
the  unrivalled  national  strength  of  America  which  explain  to  us 
why  she  is  ©ot  ruined  by  the  huge  waste  of  the  protective  system. 


t'REE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  !-^& 

And  first  of  these  I  place  the  immense  extent  and  vastness  of  her 
territory,  which  make  her  not  so  much  a  country  as  in  her- 
self a  world,  and  not  a  very  little  world.  She  carries  on  the 
business  of  domestic  exchanges  on  a  scale  such  as  mankind  has 
never  seen.  Of  all  the  staple  products  of  human  industry  and 
care,  how  few  are  there  which,  in  one  or  another  of  her  countless 
regions,  the  soil  of  America  would  refuse  to  yield.  No  other 
country  has  the  same  diversity,  the  same  free  choice  of  industrial 
pursuit,  the  same  option  to  lay  hold  not  on  the  good  merely,  but  on 
the  best.  Historically,  all  international  trade  has  had  its  broadest 
basis  in  the  interchange  between  tropical  or  southern  commodi- 
ties and  those  of  the  temperate  or  northern  zone.  And  even 
this  kind  of  exchange  America  possesses  on  a  considerable  scale 
within  her  own  ample  borders. 

Apart  from  this  wide  variety,  I  suppose  there  is  no  other  coun- 
try of  the  whole  earth  in  which,  if  we  combine  together  the  sur- 
face and  that  which  is  below  the  surface.  Nature  has  been  so 
bountiful  to  man.  The  mineral  resources  of  our  own  Britannic  Isle 
have,  without  question,  principally  contributed  to  its  commercial 
preeminence.  But  when  we  match  them  with  those  of  America, 
it  is  Lilliput  against  Brobdingnag.  I  believe  that  your  coal-field, 
for  example,  is  to  ours  nearly  in  the  proportion  of  thirty-six  to 
one.  Now,  this  vast  aggregate  superiority  of  purely  natural 
wealth  is  simply  equivalent  to  the  gift,  say,  of  a  queen  in  a  game 
of  chess,  or  to  a  start  allowed  in  a  race  by  one  boy  to  another  ; 
with  this  difference  :  that  America  could  hold  her  own  against  all 
comers  without  the  queen,  and  that,  like  her  little  Lord  Fauntle- 
roy,  she  can,  if  she  likes,  run  the  race,  and  perhaps  win  it,  upon 
equal  terms.  By  protection  she  makes  a  bad  move,  which  helps 
us  to  make  fight,  and  ties  a  heavy  clog  upon  her  feet,  so  that  the 
most  timid  among  us  need  not  now  to  greatly  dread  her  com- 
petition in  the  international  trade  of  the  world. 

Again,  the  international  position  of  America  may,  in  a  cer- 
tain light,  be  illustrated  by  comparing  together  the  economical 
conditions  under  which  coal  has  been  produced  in  the  different 
districts  of  this  island.  The  royalty  upon  coal  represents  that 
surplus  over  and  above  estimated  trading  profit  from  a  mine 
which  the  lessee  can  afford  to  pay  the  landlord.  In  England, 
generally,  royalties  have  varied  from  about  sixpence  a  ton  to  nine- 
pence  in  a  few  cases ;  scarcely  ever  higher.     But  in  Staffordshire, 


46  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QVESTION. 

©wing  to  the  existence  of  a  remarkable  coal-measure,  called  the  ten- 
yard  coal,  and  to  the  presence  of  ironstone  abundantly  interstrati- 
fied  with  the  coal,  the  royalty  has  often  amounted  to  no  less  than 
three  shillings.  This  excess  has  a  real  analogy  to  the  surplus 
bounty  of  Mother  Earth  in  America.  And  when  I  see  her  abat- 
ing somewhat  of  her  vast  advantages  through  the  trick  of  pro- 
tection, I  am  reminded  of  the  curious  fact  that  (as  it  happens) 
this  unusual  abundance  of  the  mineral  made  the  getting  of  it  in 
Staffordshire  singularly  wasteful,  and  that  fractions,  and  no 
small  fractions,  of  the  ten-yard  coal  are  now  irrecoverably  buried 
in  the  earth,  like  the  tribute  which  America  has,  and  has,  as  it 
seems,  contentedly,  been  paying  to  her  protected  interests. 

In  most  of  the  elements  of  cheapness,  America  wholly  sur- 
passes us  ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  natural,  indefeasible  advantages 
she  enjoys  through  the  vastness  not  only  of  the  soils  which  pro- 
duce, but  of  the  markets  which  consume,  her  productions.  I  have 
lately  seen  a  penny  periodical,  published  by  Messrs.  Harper,  of 
New  York,  which  far  surpasses  all  that  the  enterprise  and  skill  of 
our  publishers  have  been  able  to  produce.  But  all  these  plus  quan- 
tities she  works  hard  to  convert  into  minuses  through  the  devour- 
ing agency  of  protection. 

There  are  two  other  particulars  which  I  have  to  notice  before 
quitting  this  portion  of  the  subject.  Each  of  them  involves  a 
complimsnt — the  one  to  us,  the  other  to  yourselves.  As  there  is 
an  invidious  element  in  all  self-praise,  I  will  get  rid  first  of  what 
touches  us.  It  is  this  :  Trade  is,  in  one  respect  at  least,  like 
mercy.  It  cannot  be  carried  on  without  conferring  a  double  benefit. 
Again,  trade  cannot  be  increased  without  increasing  this  benefit, 
and  increasing  it  (in  the  long  run)  on  both  sides  alike.  Freedom 
has  enormously  extended  our  trade  with  the  countries  of  the 
world,  and,  above  all  others,  with  the  United  States.  It  follows 
that  they  have  derived  immense  benefit,  that  their  waste  has  been 
greatly  repaired,  their  accumulations  largely  augmented,  through 
British  legislation.  We  have  not  on  this  ground  any  merit  or  any 
claims  whatever.  We  legislated  for  our  own  advantage,  and  are  sat- 
isfied with  the  benefit  we  have  received.  But  it  is  a  fact,  and  a  fact 
of  no  small  dimensions,  which,  in  estimating  the  material  develop- 
ment of  America,  cannot  be  lost  sight  of. 

My  second  point  touches  the  circumstances  of  the  national 
infancy  and  growth.     It  would  be  alike  futile  and   unjust,   in 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  41 

pointing  out  the  singular  advantages  over  the  outer  world  which 
nature  has  given  to  America,  not  to  take  notice  of  those  ad- 
vantages which  her  people  have  earned  or  created  for  themselves. 
In  no  country,  I  suppose,  has  there  been  so  careful  a  cultivation 
of  the  inventive  faculty.  And  if  America  has  surpassed  in  indus- 
trial discoveries  the  race  from  which  her  people  sprang,  we  do 
not  grudge  her  the  honor  or  the  gain.  Americans  are  econo- 
mists in  inventions  and  do  not  let  them  slip.  For  example,  the 
reaping-machine  of  modern  times,  I  believe,  was  invented  in 
Forfarshire,  but  did  not  pass  into  any  general  use.  Still-born 
there,  it  disappeared;  but  it  was  appreciated  and  established  in 
America,  and  then  came  back  among  us  as  an  importation  from 
thence,  and  was  at  last  appreciated  and  established  here.  The 
scarcity  of  labor  has,  in  truth,  supplied  the  great  Republic  with  an 
essential  element  of  severe  and  salutary  discipline. 

The  youth  of  America  was,  especially  in  New  England,  a 
youth  not  of  luxury,  but  of  difficulty.  Nature  dealt  somewhat 
sternly  with  your  ancestors  ;  and  to  their  great  advantage.  They 
were  reared  in  a  mold  of  masculine  character,  and  were  made  fit 
to  encounter,  and  turn  to  account,  all  vicissitudes.  As  the  coun- 
try opened,  they  were  confronted  everywhere  with  one  great  and 
crying  want,  the  scarcity  of  labor.  So  they  were  put  upon  the 
applisation  of  their  mental  powers  to  labor-saving  contrivances, 
and  tliis  want  grew  as  fast  as,  or  faster  than,  it  was  supplied. 
Thus  it  has  come  about  that  a  race  endued  with  consummate 
ability  for  labor  has  also  become  the  richest  of  all  races  in  instru- 
ments for  dispensing  with  labor.  The  provision  of  such  instru- 
ments has  become  with  you  a  standing  tradition,  and  this  to  such  a 
degree  that  you  have  taken  your  place  as  (probably)  the  most  invent- 
ive nation  in  the  world.  It  is  thus  obvious  enough  that  a 
remarkable  faculty  and  habit  of  invention,  which  goes  direct  to 
cheapness,  helps  to  fill  up  that  gap  in  your  productive  results 
which  is  created  by  the  wastefulness  of  protection.  The  leakage 
in  the  national  cistern  is  more  than  compensated  by  the  efficiency 
of  the  pumps  that  supply  it. 

America  makes  no  scruple,  then,  to  cheapen  everything  in 
which  labor  is  concerned,  and  she  gives  the  capitalist  the  com- 
mand of  all  inventions  on  the  best  terms  she  can  contrive.  Why  ? 
Only  because  this  is  the  road  to  national  wealth.  Therefore,  she 
has  no  mercy  upon  labor,  but  displaces  it  right  and  left.     Yet 


49  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

when  we  come  to  the  case  where  capital  is  «iost  in  question,  she 
enables  her  ship-builders,  her  iron-masters,  and  her  mill-owners 
to  charge  double  or  semi-double  prices ;  which,  if  her  practice 
as  to  labor-saving  be  right,  must  be  the  road  to  national  poverty. 
E  converso,  if  she  be  right  in  shutting  out  foreign  ships  and  goods 
to  raise  the  receipts  of  the  American  capitalist,  why  does  she  not 
tax  the  reaping-machine  and  the  American  "  devil  "*  to  raise  the 
receipts  of  the  American  laborer  ?  Not  that  I  recommend  such 
consistency.  I  rejoice  in  the  anomalies  and  contradictions  by 
virtue  of  which  the  applications  of  science  everywhere  abound 
through  the  States  for  the  benefit  of  their  populations,  and  with' 
out  doubt,  though  more  circuitously,  of  ours  also,  and  of  the  world 
at  large. 

I  have  still  to  notice  one  remaining  point.  It  is  this  :  I  do 
not  doubt  that  production  is  much  cheapened  in  America  by  the 
absence  of  all  kinds  of  class  legislation  except  that  which  is  termed 
protection ;  an  instance  alike  vicious  and  gigantic,  but  still  an  in- 
stance only.  In  our  British  legislation,  the  interest  of  the  indi- 
vidual or  the  class  still  rather  largel}?  prevails  against  that  of  the 
public.  In  America,  as  I  understand  the  matter,  the  public  ob- 
tains full  and  equal  justice.  I  take  for  example  the  case  of  the 
railroads ;  that  vast  creation,  one  of  almost  universal  good  to  man- 
kind, now  approaching  to  one-tenth  or  one-twelfth  of  our  entire 
national  possessions.  It  is  believed  that  in  unnecessary  Parlia- 
mentary expenditure,  and  in  abnormal  prices  paid  for  land,  the 
railways  of  this  country  were  taxed  to  between  fifty  and  a  hundred 
millions  sterling  beyond  the  natural  cost  of  their  creation.  Thus 
does  the  spirit  of  protection,  only  shifting  its  form,  still  go  raven- 
ing about  amongst  us.  Nothing  is  so  common  here  as  to  receive 
compensation  ;  and  we  get  it  not  only  for  injuries,  but  for  benefits. 
But  while  the  great  nation  of  the  Union  rightly  rejoices  in  her 
freedom  from  our  superstitions,  why  should  she  desire,  create  and 
worship  new  superstitions  of  her  own  ? 

VII.    THE   MORAL   ASPECT   OF  THE   SUBJECT. 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that,  although  I  have  closed  the  economical 
argument,  I  have  not  yet  done  with  the  counts  of  my  indictment 
against  protection.     I  have,  indeed,  had  to  ask  myself  whether  I 

*  So  called  here  on  its  first  introductioo.  I  rather  believe  it  has  recently  acquired 
some  mere  euphonious  name. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  43 

should  be  within  my  right  in  saying  hard  things,  outside  the  do- 
main of  political  economy,  about  a  system  which  has  commended 
itself  to  the  great  American  state  and  people,  although  those 
hard  things  are,  in  part  at  least,  strictly  consequent  upon  what 
has  been  said  before.  Indeed,  the  moral  is  so  closely  allied  to 
the  economical  argument  as  to  be  intertwined  with  it  rather 
than  consequent  upon  it.  Further,  I  believe  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  be  a  people  who,  like  that  race  from  which  they 
are  sprung,  love  plain  speaking  ;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  to 
suppress  opinions  deliberately  and  conscientiously  held  would  be 
the  way  to  win  your  respect. 

I  urge,  then,  that  all  protection  is  morally  as  well  as  econom- 
ically bad.  This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  all 
Protectionists  are  bad.  Many  of  them,  without  doubt,  are  good, 
nay,  excellent,  as  were  in  this  country  many  of  the  supporters  of 
the  Corn  Law.  It  is  of  the  tendencies  of  a  system  that  I  speak, 
which  operate  variously,  upon  most  men  unconsciously,  upon 
some  men  not  at  all ;  and  surely  that  system  cannot  be  good 
which  makes  an  individual,  or  a  set  of  individuals,  live  on  the 
resources  of  the  community  and  causes  him  relatively  to  diminish 
that  store,  which  duty  to  his  fellow-citizens  and  to  their  equal 
rights  should  teach  him  by  his  contributions  to  augment.  The 
habit  of  mind  thus  engendered  is  not  such  as  altogether  befits  a 
free  country  or  harmonizes  with  an  independent  character.  And 
the  more  the  system  of  protection  is  discussed  and  contested, 
the  more  those  whom  it  favors  are  driven  to  struggle  for  its 
maintenance,  the  farther  they  must  insensibly  deviate  from  the 
law  of  equal  rights,  and,  perhaps,  even  from  the  tone  of  genuine 
personal  independence. 

In  speaking  thus,  we  speak  greatly  from  our  own  experience. 
I  have  personally  lived  througli  the  varied  phases  of  that  experience, 
since  we  began  that  battle  between  monopoly  and  freedom  which 
cost  us  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  the  nation's  life.  I  have 
seen  and  known,  and  had  the  opportunity  of  comparing,  the 
temper  and  frame  of  mind  engendered  first  by  our  protectionism, 
which  we  now  look  back  upon  as  servitude,  and  then  by  the  com- 
mercial freedom  and  equality  which  we  have  enjoyed  for  the  last 
thirty  or  forty  years.  The  one  tended  to  harden  into  positive 
selfishness ;  the  other  has  done  much  to  foster  a  more  liberal  tone 
of  mind. 


44  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  economical  question  which  I  have  been  endeavoring  to 
discuss  is  a  very  large  one.  Nevertheless,  it  dwindles,  in  my  view, 
when  it  is  compared  with  the  paramount  question  of  the  American 
future  viewed  at  large.  There  opens  before  the  thinking  mind 
when  this  supreme  question  is  propounded  a  vista  so  transcending 
all  ordinary  limitation  as  requires  an  almost  preterhuman  force  and 
expansion  of  the  mental  eye  in  order  to  embrace  it.  Some  things,  and 
some  weighty  things,  are  clear  so  far  as  the  future  admits  of  clear- 
ness. There  is  a  vision  of  territory,  population,  power,  passing 
beyond  all  experience.  The  exhibition  to  mankind,  for  the  first 
time  in  history,  of  free  institutions  on  a  gigantic  scale,  is  momen- 
tous, and  I  have  enough  faith  in  freedom,  enough  distrust  of  all 
that  is  alien  from  freedom,  to  believe  that  it  will  work  powerfully 
for  good.  But  together  with  and  behind  these  vast  developments 
there  will  come  a  corresponding  opportunity  of  social  and  moral  in- 
fluence to  be  exercised  over  the  rest  of  the  world.  And  the  question  of 
questions  for  us,  as  trustees  for  our  posterity,  is,  What  will  be  the 
nature  of  this  influence  ?  Will  it  make  us,  the  children  of  the 
senior  races,  who  will  have  to  come  under  its  action,  better  or 
worse  ?  Not  what  manner  of  producer,  but  what  manner  of  man, 
is  the  American  of  the  future  to  be  ? 

I  am,  I  trust,  a  lover  of  human  advancement;  but  I  know  of 
no  true  progress  except  upon  the  old  lines.  Our  race  has  not 
lived  for  nothing.  Their  pilgrimage  through  this  deeply  shadowed 
valley  of  life  and  death  has  not  been  all  in  vain.  They  have 
made  accumulations  on  our  behalf.  I  resent,  and  to  the  best  of 
my  power  I  would  resist,  every  attempt  to  deprive  us  either  in 
whole  or  in  part  of  the  benefit  of  those  accumulations.  The 
American  love  of  freedom  will,  beyond  all  doubt,  be  to  some  ex- 
tent qualified,  perhaps  in  some  cases  impaired,  by  the  subtle  in- 
fluence of  gold,  aggregated  by  many  hands  in  vaster  masses  than 
have  yet  been  known. 

Anmm  per  medios  ire  satellites, 
Et  pemimpere  amat  saxa,  potentius 
Ictu  f  ulmineo. 

But,  to  rise  higher  still,  how  will  the  majestic  figure,  about  to 
become  the  largest  and  most  powerful  on  the  stage  of  the  world's 
history,  make  use  of  his  power  ?  Will  it  be  instinct  with  moral 
life  in  proportion  to  its  material  strength  !  Will  he  uphold  and 
propagate  the  Christian  tradition  with  that    surpassing  energy 


Pn^E  Trade  or  protection.  4S 

which  marks  him  in  all  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life  ?  "Will  he 
maintain  with  a  high  hand  an  unfaltering  reverence  for  that 
law  of  nature  which  is  anterior  to  the  Gospel,  and  supplies  the 
standard  to  which  it  appeals,  the  very  foundation  on  which  it  is 
built  up  ?  Will  he  fully  know,  and  fully  act  upon  the  knowledge, 
that  both  reverence  and  strictness  are  essential  conditions  of  all 
high  and  desirable  well-being  ?  And  will  he  be  a  leader  and 
teacher  to  us  of  the  old  world  in  rejecting  and  denouncing  all 
the  miserable  degrading  sophistries  by  which  the  arch-enemy,  ever 
devising  more  and  more  subtle  schemes  against  us,  seeks  at  one 
stroke  perhaps  to  lower  us  beneath  the  brutes,  assuredly  to 
out  us  off  from  the  hope  and  from  the  source  of  the  final 
good  ?  One  thing  is  certain  :  his  temptations  will  multiply 
with  his  power;  his  responsibilities  with  his  opportunities. 
Will  the  seed  be  sown  among  the  thorns  ?  Will  worldliness 
overrun  the  ground  and  blight  its  flowers  and  its  fruit  ? 
On  the  answers  to  these  questions,  and  to  such  as  these,  it 
will  depend  whether  this  new  revelation  of  power  upon  the 
earth  is  also  to  be  a  revelation  of  virtue  ;  whether  it  shall  prove  a 
blessing  or  a  curse.  May  Heaven  avert  every  darker  omen,  and 
grant  that  the  latest  and  largest  growth  of  the  great  Christian 
civilization  shall  also  be  the  brightest  and  the  best  ! 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 

MR.  BLAINE: 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Gladstone  is  the  most  dis- 
tinguished representative  of  the  free-trade  school  of  political 
economists.  His  addresses  in  Parliament  on  his  celebrated  '  ud- 
get,  when  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in  1853,  were  declared 
by  Lord  John  Russell  "to  contJn  the  ablest  exposition  of  the 
true  principles  of  finance  ever  delivered  by  an  English  states- 
man." His  illustrious  character,  his  great  ability,  and  his  finan- 
cial experience  point  to  him  as  'he  leading  defender  of  free 
trade  applied  to  the  industrial  system  of  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Gladstone  apologizes  for  his  apparent  interference  with 
our  affairs.  He  may  be  assured  that  apology  is  superfluous. 
Americans  of  all  classes  hold  him  in  honor  :  Free-Traders  will  re- 
joice in  so  eminent  an  advocate,  and  Protectionists,  always  the 
representative^  of  liberality  and  progress,  will  be  glad  to  learn  his 
opinions  upon  a  question  of  such  transcendent  importance  to  the 
past,  the  present,  and  the  future  of  the  iiepublic. 


46  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  feature  in  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  as  indeed  of  every  English  Free-Trader  except  John 
Stuart  Mill,  is  the  universality  of  application  which  he  demands 
for  his  theory.  In  urging  its  adoption  he  makes  no  distinction 
between  countries;  he  takes  no  account  of  geographical  position 
— whether  a  nation  be  in  the  eastern  or  the  western  hemisphere, 
whether  it  be  north  or  south  of  the  equator ;  he  pays  no  heed  to 
climate,  or  product,  or  degree  of  advancement ;  none  to  topo- 
graphy— whether  the  country  be  as  level  as  the  delta  of  the  Nile, 
or  as  mountainous  as  the  Republic  of  Bolivia;  none  to  pursuits 
and  employments,  whether  in  the  agricultural,  manufacturing,  or 
commercial  field ;  none  to  the  wealth  or  poverty  of  a  people; 
none  to  population,  whether  it  be  crowded  or  sparse;  none  to 
area,  whether  it  be  as  limited  as  a  German  principality  or  as 
extended  as  a  continental  Empire.  Free  trade  he  believes  advan- 
tageous for  England  :  therefore,  without  the  allowance  of  any 
modifying  condition,  great  or  small,  the  English  economist  de- 
clares it  to  be  advantageous  for  the  United  States,  for  Brazil,  for 
Australia  ;  in  short,  for  all  countries  with  which  England  can 
establish  trade  relations.  It  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
for  Mr.  Gladstone  to  find  any  pVinciple  of  administration  or  any 
measure  of  finance  so  exactly  fitted  to  the  varying  needs  of  all 
countries  as  he  assumes  the  policy  of  free  trade  to  be.  Surely  it 
is  not  unfair  to  maintain  that,  deducing  his  results  from  observ- 
ation and  experience  in  his  own  country,  he  may  fall  into  error 
and  fail  to  appreciate  the  financial  workings  of  other  countries 
geographically  remote  and  of  vastly  greater  area. 

The  American  Protecti  nist,  let  t  not  be  discourteous  to  urge, 
is  broader  in  his  views  than  the  Euglish  Free-Trader.  No  in- 
telligent Protectionist  in  the  United  States  pretends  that  every 
country  would  alike  realize  advantage  from  the  adoption  of  the 
protective  system.  Human  government  is  not  a  machine,  and 
even  machines  cannot  be  so  perfectl"  adjusted  as  to  work  with 
equal  effectiveness  at  all  times  and  under  all  conditions.  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  certainly  resemble  one  another  in 
more  ways  than  either  can  be  said  to  resemble  any  other  nation  in 
the  world  ;  yet,  when  we  compare  the  two  on  the  question  at  issue, 
the  differences  are  m  marked  that  we  almost  lose  eight  of  the 
resemblance.  One  is  an  insular  monarchy  with  class  govern- 
ment ;  the  other  u  continental  lepublic   with  popular  govern' 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  47 

ment.  One  has  a  large  population  to  the  square  mile  ;  the 
other  a  small  population  to  the  square  mile.  One  was  old 
in  a  rich  and  complex  civilization  before  the  establishment  of 
the  other  was  even  foreseen.  One  had  become  the  wealthiest 
nation  of  the  world  while  the  other  was  yet  in  the  toils  and 
doubts  of  a  frontier  life  and  a  primitive  civilization.  One  had 
extensive  manufactures  for  almost  every  field  of  human  need, 
with  the  civilized  world  for  its  market,  while  the  population  of 
the  other  was  still  forced  to  divide  its  energies  between  the  hard 
calling  of  the  sea  and  the  still  harder  calling  of  a  rude  and 
scantily-remunerative  agriculture. 

The  physical  differences  between  the  two  countries  are  far 
more  striking  than  the  political  and  social  differences.  They  are, 
indeed,  almost  incalculable.  Great  Britain  is  an  island  less  than 
ninety  thousand  square  miles  in  extent.  It  lies  in  the  far  north. 
Its  southernmost  point  is  nearly  thirty  degrees  of  latitude  above 
the  tropics.  Its  northernmost  point  is  but  nine  degrees  below  the 
arctic  circle.  Within  its  area  the  exchange  of  natural  products 
is  necessarily  limited.  Its  life  depends  upon  its  connection 
with  other  countries.  Its  prosperity  rests  upon  its  commerce 
with  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  a  single  State  of  the  Union 
is  nearly  three  times  as  large  as  Great  Britain.  Several  other 
States  are  each  quite  equal  to  it  in  area.  The  whole  Union  is 
well-nigh  forty  times  as  large.  Alaska  excepted,  the  northern- 
most point  of  the  Union  is  sixty  miles  south  of  the  southernmost 
point  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  southernmost  point  of  the  Union 
is  but  little  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from  the  tropics.  Its 
natural  products  are  more  varied,  more  numerous,  and  of  more 
valuable  character  than  those  of  all  Europe.  To  quote  one  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  phrases,  we  constitute  "  not  so  much  a  country 
in  ourselves,  as  a  world."  He  tells  us  that  we  carry  on  "the 
business  of  domestic  exchanges  on  a  scale  such  as  mankind  has 
never  seen."  Our  foreign  commerce,  very  large  in  itself,  is  only 
as  one  to  twenty-five  compared  to  our  internal  trade.  And  yet 
Mr.  Gladstone  thinks  that  a  policy  which  is  essential  to  an  island 
in  the  northern  ocean  should  be  adopted  as  the  policy  of  a  coun- 
try which  even  to  his  own  vision  is  "  a  world  within  itself." 

With  these  fundamental  points  of  difference  between  the  two 
countries,  I  assunte  that  varied  financial  and  industrial  sys- 
tems, wrought  by  the  experience  of  each,  would  be  the  nat- 


48  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

ural  and  loj;io«l  result.  Hence  I  do  not  join  issue  with  Mr. 
Gladstone  on  both  of  his  propositions.  He  defends  free 
trade  in  Great  Britain.  He  assails  protection  in  the  United 
States.  The  first  proposition  I  neither  deny  nor  aflarm. 
Were  I  to  assume  that  protection  is  in  all  countries  and 
under  all  circumstances  the  wisest  policy,  I  should  be  guilty  of 
an  error  similar  to  that  which  I  think  Mr.  Gladstone  commits. 
It  might  be  difficult  to  prove  that  free  trade  is  not  the  wisest 
financial  policy  for  Great  Britain.  So  far  from  guarding  herself 
against  material  imported  from  other  countries,  her  industrial 
system  would  wither  and  die  if  foreign  products  were  withheld  for 
even  a  brief  period.  She  is  in  an  especial  degree  dependent  upon 
the  products  of  other  nations.  Moreover,  she  does  not  feel  bound 
to  pay  heed  to  the  rate  of  wages  which  her  labor  may  receive. 
That,  like  the  fabrics  which  her  labor  creates,  must  take  its  chance 
in  the  markets  of  the  world. 

On  many  points  and  in  many  respects  it  was  far  different  with 
Great  Britian  a  hundred  years  ago.  She  did  not  then  feel  as- 
sured that  she  could  bear  the  competition  of  Continental  nations. 
She  was,  therefore,  aggressively,  even  cruelly,  protective.  She 
manufactured  for  herself  and  for  her  net- work  of  colonies  reaching 
around  the  globe.  Into  those  colonies  no  other  nation  could  carry 
anything.  There  was  no  scale  of  duty  upon  which  other  nations 
could  enter  a  colonial  port.  What  the  colonies  needed  outside  of 
British  products  could  be  furnished  to  them  only  in  British  ships. 
This  was  not  protection  !  It  was  prohibition,  absolute  and  re. 
morseless,  and  it  was  continued  even  to  the  day  when  Mr.  Glad 
stone  entered  upon  his  long  and  splendia  career  in  Parliament.  J, 
was  not  broken,  though  in  some  respects  it  was  relaxed,  until  In 
the  fulness  of  time  British  energy  had  carried  the  wealth  and  the 
skill  of  the  kingdom  to  the  point  where  no  competition  could  be 
feared. 

During  the  last  thirty  years  of  her  protective  system,  and 
especially  during  the  twenty  years  from  1826  to  1846,  Great 
Britain  increased  her  material  wealth  beyond  all  precedent  in  the 
commercial  history  of  the  world.  Her  development  of  steam  power 
gave  to  every  British  workman  the  arms  of  Briareus,  and  the  in- 
ventive power  of  her  mechanicians  increased  the  amount,  the  variety, 
and  the  value  of  her  fabrics  beyond  all  anticipation.  Every  year  of 
that  period  witnessed  the  addition  of  millions  upon  raiUions  of 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  49 

sterling  to  the  reserve  capital  of  the  kingdom  ;  every  year  wit- 
nessed a  great  addition  to  the  effective  machinery  whose  aggregate 
power  was  already  the  wonder  of  the  world.  The  onward  march 
of  her  manufacturing  industries,  the  steady  and  rapid  develop- 
ment of  her  mercantile  marine,  absorbed  the  matchless  enterprise 
and  energy  of  the  kingdom.  Finally,  with  a  vast  capital  accu- 
mulated, with  a  low  rate  of  interest  established,  and  with  a 
manufacturing  power  unequalled,  the  British  merchants  were 
ready  to  underbid  all  rivals  in  seeking  for  the  trade  of  the  world. 

At  that  moment  Great  Britain  had  reason  to  feel  supremely 
content.  She  found  under  her  own  flag,  on  the  shores  of  every 
ocean,  a  host  of  consumers  whom  no  man  might  number.  She 
had  Canada,  Australia,  and  India  with  open  ports  and  free  mar- 
kets for  all  her  fabrics  ;  and,  more  than  all  these  combined,  she 
found  the  United  States  suddenly  and  seriously  lowering  her  tariff 
and  effectively  abolishing  protection  at  the  very  moment  Eng- 
land was  declaring  for  free  trade.  The  traffic  of  the  world 
seemed  prospectively  in  her  control.  Could  this  condition 
of  trade  have  continued,  no  estimate  of  the  growth  of  England's 
wealth  would  be  possible.  Practically  it  would  have  had  no  limit. 
Could  she  have  retained  her  control  of  the  markets  of  the  United 
States  as  she  held  it  for  the  four  years  preceding  the  outbreak  of 
the  Civil  War,  the  American  people  would  have  grown  commer- 
cially dependent  upon  her  in  a  greater  degree  than  is  Canada  or 
Australia  to-day. 

But  England  was  dealing  with  an  intelligence  equal  to  her 
own.  The  American  people  had,  by  repeated  experience,  learned 
that  the  periods  of  depression  in  home  manufactures  were  those 
in  which  England  most  prospered  in  her  commercial  relations 
with  the  United  States,  and  that  these  periods  of  depression 
had,  with  a  single  exception,  easily  explained,  followed  the 
enactment  by  Congress  of  a  free-trade  tariff,*  as  certainly  as  effect 
follows  cause.  One  of  the  most  suggestive  experiments  of  that 
kind  had  its  origin  in  the  tariff  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  passed 
in  1846  in  apparent  harmony  with  England's  newly-declared  finan- 
cial policy.  At  that  moment  a  Southern  President  (Mr,  Polk)  and  a 
Southern  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  (Mr.  Robert  J.  Walker)  were 

* 

*  The  phrase  "free-trade  tariff"  involves  a  contradiction  of  terms.  It  Is  used  to 
desiimate  that  form  of  duty  which  is  levied  with  no  intention  to  protect  domestic 
manufacture^. 


f)0  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

far  more  interested  in  expanding  the  area  of  slare  territory  than 
in  advancing  home  manufactures;  and  were  especially  eager  to 
make  commercial  exchanges  with  Europe  on  the  somewhat  dif- 
ficult basis  of  cotton  at  high  prices  and  returning  fabrics  at  low 
prices. 

Under  ordinary  circumstances  the  free  trade  tariff  of  1846 
would  have  promptly  fallen  under  popular  reprobation  and  been 
doomed  to  speedy  repeal.  But  it  had  a  singular  history  and  for 
a  time  was  generally  acquiesced  in,  even  attaining  in  many  sec- 
tions a  certain  degree  of  popularity.  Never  did  any  other  tariff 
meet  with  so  many  and  so  great  aids  of  an  adventitious  char- 
acter to  sustain  it  as  did  this  enactment  of  1846.  Our  war  with 
Mexico  began  just  as  the  duties  were  lowered,  and  the  consequence 
was  the  disbursement  of  more  than  one  hundred  millions  of  dol- 
lars in  a  way  that  reached  all  localities  and  favorably  affected  all 
interests.  This  was  a  great  sum  of  money  for  that  period,  and  for 
the  years  1846,  1847,  and  1848  it  considerably  more  than  doubled 
the  ordinary  outlay  of  the  government.  In  the  middle  of  this 
period  the  Irish  famine  occurred  and  called  for  an  immense  ex- 
port of  breadstuffs  at  high  prices.  The  discovery  of  gold  in  Cali- 
fornia, the  succeeding  year,  flushed  the  channels  of  business  as 
never  before,  by  rapidly  enlarging  the  circulation  of  coin  in  all 
parts  of  the  country.  Before  this  outpouring  of  gold  had  ceased, 
the  three  great  nations  of  Europe,  as  precedence  was  reckoned  at 
that  time, — England,  France,  and  Russia, — entered  upon  the 
Crimean  War.  J^he  export  of  manufactures  from  England  and 
France  was  checked  ;  the  breadstuffs  of  Russia  were  blockaded 
and  could  not  reach  the  markets  of  the  world.  An  extraordinary 
stimulus  was  thus  given  to  all  forms  of  trade  in  the  United  States. 
For  ten  years — 1846  to  1856 — these  adventitious  aids  came  in 
regular  succession  and  exerted  their  powerful  influence  upon  the 
prosperity  of  the  country. 

The  withdrawal  or  termination  of  these  influences,  by  a  treaty 
of  peace  in  Europe  and  by  the  surcease  of  gold  from  California, 
placed  the  tariff  of  1846  where  a  real  test  of  its  merits  or  its  de- 
merits could  be  made.  It  was  everywhere  asked  with  apprehen- 
sion and  anxiety.  Will  this  free-trade  tariff  now  develop  and  sus- 
tain the  business  of  the  country  as  firmly  and  securely  as  it  has 
been  developed  and  sustained  by  protection  ?  The  answer  was 
made  in  the  ensuing  year  by  a  widespread  financial  panic,  which 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  51 

involved  the  ruin  of  thousands,  including  proportionately  as 
many  in  the  South  as  in  the  North,  leaving  the  country  dis- 
ordered and  distressed  in  all  the  avenues  of  trade.  The  disas- 
trous results  of  this  tariff  upon  the  permanent  industries  of  the 
country  are  described  in  President  Buchanan's  well-remembered 
message,  communicated  to  Congress  after  the  panic  :  *•'  With  un- 
surpassed plenty  in  all  the  elements  of  national  wealth,  our 
manufacturers  have  suspended,  our  public  works  are  retarded,  our 
private  enterprises  of  different  kinds  are  abandoned,  and  thou- 
sands of  useful  laborers  are  thrown  out  of  employment  and 
reduced  to  want/'  This  testimony  as  to  the  result  of  a  free-trade 
tariff  is  all  the  more  forcible  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Buchanan, 
as  a  member  of  President  Polk's  Cabinet,  had  consented  to  the 
abandonment  of  protection,  which  in  his  earlier  career  he  had 
earnestly  supported. 

If  these  disasters  of  1857,  flowing  from  the  free-trade  tariff, 
could  have  been  regarded  as  exceptional,  if  they  had  been  without 
parallel  or  precedent,  they  might  not  have  had  so  deadly  a  signifi- 
cance. But  the  American  people  had  twice  before  passed  through 
a  similar  experience.  On  the  eve  of  the  War  of  1812,  Congress 
guarded  the  national  strength  by  enacting  a  highly  protective 
tariff.  By  its  own  terms  this  tariff  must  end  with  the  war.  When 
the  new  tariff  was  to  be  formed,  a  popular  cry  arose  against 
'*  war  duties,"  though  the  country  had  prospered  under  them 
despite  the  exhausting  effect  of  the  struggle  with  Great  Britain. 
But  the  prayer  of  the  people  was  answered,  and  the  war  duties 
were  dropped  from  the  tariff  of  1816.  The  business  of  the  country 
was  speedily  prostrated.  The  people  were  soon  reduced  to  as  great 
distress  as  in  that  melancholy  period  between  the  close  of  the 
Revolutionary  War  and  the  organization  of  the  National  Govern- 
ment— 1783  to  1789.  Colonel  Benton's  vivid  description  of  the 
period  of  depression  following  the  reduction  of  duties  comprises 
in  a  few  lines  a  whole  chapter  of  the  history  of  free  trade  in  the 
United  States : 

"  No  price  for  property;  no  sales  except  those  of  the  sheriff  and  the  marshal;  no  pur- 
chasers at  execution-sales  except  the  creditor  or  some  hoarder  of  money;  no  employ- 
ment for  industry ;  no  demand  for  labor;  no  sale  for  the  products  of  the  farm;  no 
sound  of  the  hammer  except  that  of  the  auctioneer  knocking  down  property.  Dis- 
tress was  the  universal  cry  of  the  people;  relief  the  universal  demand." 


Relief  came  at  last  with  the  enactment  of  the  protective  tariff 
of  1824,  to  the  support  of  which  leading  men  of  both  parties  pa- 
4 


f)2  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

^^otically  united  for  the  common  good.  That  act,  supplemented 
b}'  the  act  of  1828,  brought  genuine  prosperity  to  the  country. 
The  credit  of  passing  the  two  protective  acts  was  not  due  to 
one  party  alone.  It  was  the  work  of  the  great  men  of  both 
parties.  Mr.  Clay  and  General  Jackson,  Mr.  Webster  and 
Mr.  Van  Buren,  General  William  Henry  Harrison  and  Kichard 
^I.  Johnson,  Silas  Wriglit  and  Louis  McLane,  voted  for  one  or  the 
other  of  these  acts,  and  several  of  them  voted  for  both.  The 
cooperation  of  these  eminent  men  is  a  great  historic  tribute  to  the 
necessity  and  value  of  protection.  Plenty  and  prosperity  followed, 
as  if  by  magic,  the  legislation  to  which  they  gave  their  support. 
We  have  their  concurrent  testimony  that  the  seven  years  pre- 
ceding the  enactment  of  the  protective  tariff  of  1824  were  the 
most  discouraging  which  the  young  Kepublic  in  its  brief  life  had 
encountered,  and  that  the  seven  years  which  followed  its  enact- 
ment were  beyond  precedent  the  most  prosperous  and  happy. 

Sectional  jealousy  and  partisan  zeal  could  not  endure  the 
great  development  of  manufactures  in  the  North  and  East  which 
followed  the  apparently  firm  establishment  of  the  protective  pol- 
icy. The  free-trade  leaders  of  the  South  believed — at  least 
they  persuaded  others  to  believe — that  the  manufacturing 
States  were  prospering  at  the  expense  of  the  planting  States. 
Under  the  lead  of  Calhoun,  South  Carolina  rebelled,  and  Presi- 
dent Juckson,  who  had  so  strikingly  shown  his  faith  in  the 
policy  of  protection,  was  not  able  to  resist  the  excitement  and 
resentment  which  the  Free-Traders  had  created  in  the  Cotton 
States.  He  stood  between  hostile  policies,  represented  by  his 
two  bitterest  personal  enemies — Clay  for  protection  ;  Calhoun  for 
free  trade.  To  support  Clay  would  ruin  Jackson  politically  in 
the  South,  He  could  not  sustain  Calhoun,  for,  aside  from  his 
oppo:;ition  to  free  trade,  lie  had  cause  for  hating  him  personally. 
He  believed,  moreover,  that  Calhoun  was  at  heart  untrue  to  the 
Union,  and  to  the  Union  Jackson  was  as  devoted  as  Clay.      Out 

■  of  this  strange  complication  came,  not  unnaturally,  the  sacrifice 
of  the  protective  tariff  of  1824-28  and  the  substitution  of  the  com- 
promise tariff  of  1833,  which  established  an  ad-valorem  duty 
of  20  per  cent,  on  all  imports,  and  reduced  the  excess  over  that 
by  a  10  per  cent,  annual  sliding  scale  for  the  ensuing  ten  years. 
Like  all  compromises,  it  gave  complete  satisfaction  to  neither  party, 
but  it  was  received  with  general  acquiescence  from  the  belief  that 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  6S 

it  was  the  best  practicable  solution  of  the  impending  difficulties. 
The  impending  difficulties  were  two.  One  was  the  portentous 
movement  which  involved  the  possibility  of  dissolving  the  Union. 
The  other  was  the  demand  for  a  free  trade  tariff  as  the  only  meas- 
ure that  could  appease  the  Southern  Nullifiers.  Disunion  and 
free  trade  from  that  time  became  associated  in  the  public  mind — 
a  source  of  apprehension  in  the  North,  a  source  of  political  power 
in  the  South.  Calhoun  was  the  master-spirit  who  had  given  the 
original  impulse  both  to  disunion  and  free  trade.  Each  in  turn 
strengthened  the  other  in  the  South  and  both  perished  together 
in  the  War  of  the  Rebellion. 

For  a  time  satisfaction  was  felt  with  the  tariff  adjustment  of 
1833,  because  it  was  regarded  as  at  least  a  temporary  reconcilia- 
tion between  two  sections  of  the  Union.  Before  the  sliding  scale 
was  ruinously  advanced,  there  was  great  stimulus  to  manufact- 
uring and  to  trade,  which  finally  assumed  the  form  of  dangerous 
speculation.  The  years  1834,  1835,  and  1836  were  distinguished 
for  all  manner  of  business  hazard,  and  before  the  fourth  year 
opened,  the  30-per  cent,  reduction  (three  years  of  10  per  cent, 
each)  on  the  scale  of  duties  was  beginning  to  influence  trade  un- 
favorably. The  apprehension  of  evil  soon  became  general,  public 
confidence  was  shaken,  the  panic  of  1837  ensued,  and  business 
reversals  were  rapid,  general,  and  devastating. 

The  trouble  increased  through  1838,  1839,  and  1840,  and  the 
party  in  power,  held  responsible  for  the  financial  disasters,  fell 
under  popular  condemnation.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  defeated,  and 
the  elder  General  Harrison  was  elevated  to  the  Presidency  by  an 
exceptionally  large  majority  of  the  electoral  votes.  There  was  no 
relief  to  the  people  until  the  protective  tariff  of  1842  was  enacted; 
and  then  the  beneficent  experience  of  1824  was  repeated  on  even  a 
more  extensive  scale.  Prosperity,  wide  and  general,  was  at  once 
I'estored.  But  the  reinstatement  of  the  Democratic  party  to  power, 
two  years  later,  by  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk  to  the  Presidency,  fol- 
lowed by  a  perverse  violation  of  public  pledges  on  the  part  of 
men  in  important  places  of  administration,  led  to  the  repeal  of 
the  protective  act  and  the  substitution  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  to 
which  I  have  already  adverted,  and  whose  effects  upon  the  country 
I  have  briefly  outlined. 

Measuring,  therefore,  from  1812,  when  a  protective  tariff 
was  enacted  to  give  strength  and  stability  to  the  government  in 


54  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

the  approaching  war  with  Great  Britain,  to  1861,  when  a  protect- 
ive tariff  was  enacted  to  give  strength  and  stability  to  the  govern- 
ment in  the  impending  revolt  of  the  Southern  States,  we  have 
fifty  years  of  suggestive  experience  in  the  history  of  the  Republic. 
During  this  long  period  free-trade  tariffs  were  thrice  followed  by 
industrial  stagnation,  by  financial  embarrassment,  by  distress 
among  all  classes  dependent  for  subsistence  upon  their  own  labor. 
Thrice  were  these  burdens  removed  by  the  enactment  of  a 
protective  tariff.  Thrice  the  protective  tariff  promptly  led  to 
industrial  activity,  to  financial  ease,  to  prosperity  among  the 
people.  And  this  happy  condition  lasted  in  each  case,  with  no 
diminution  of  its  beneficent  influence,  until  illegitimate  political 
combinations,  having  their  origin  in  personal  and  sectional  aims, 
precipitated  another  era  of  free  trade.  A  perfectly  impartial  man, 
unswerved  by  the  excitement  which  this  question  engenders  in  pop- 
ular discussion,  might  safely  be  asked  if  the  half -century's  experi- 
ence, with  its  three  trials  of  both  systems,  did  not  establish  the 
wisdom  of  protection  in  the  United  States.  If  the  inductive 
method  of  reasoning  may  be  trusted,  we  certainly  have  a  logical 
basis  of  conclusion  in  the  facts  here  detailed. 

And  by  what  other  mode  of  reasoning  can  we  safely  proceed  in 
this  field  of  controversy?  The  great  method  of  Bacon  was  by 
"  rigid  and  pure  observation,  aided  by  experiment  and  fructified 
by  induction."  Let  us  investigate  "  from  effects  to  causes,  and 
not  from  causes  to  effects."  Surely  it  is  by  a  long  series  of  experi- 
ments, and  by  that  test  only,  that  any  country  can  establish  an 
industrial  system  that  will  best  aid  in  developing  its  hidden  wealth 
and  establishing  its  permanent  prosperity.  And  each  country 
must  act  intelligently  for  itself.  Questions  of  trade  can  no  more 
be  regulated  by  an  exact  science  than  crops  can  be  produced  with 
accurate  forecast  The  unknown  quantities  are  so  many  that  a 
problem  in  trade  or  agriculture  can  never  have  an  absolute  answer 
in  advance.  But  Mr.  Gladstone,  with  an  apparent  confidence  in 
results  as  unshaken  as  though  he  were  dealing  with  the  science  of 
numbers,  proceeds  to  demonstrate  the  advantage  of  free  trade. 
He  is  positively  certain  in  advance  of  the  answer  which  experi- 
ment will  give,  and  the  inference  is  that  nothing  is  to  be  gained 
by  awaiting  the  experiment.  Mr.  Gladstone  may  argue  for  Great 
Britain  as  he  will,  but  for  the  United  States  we  must  insist  on 
being  guided  by  facts,  and  not  by  theories ;  we  must  insist  on  ad- 


t'REE  fRADt:  OR  PROTECTION.  65 

hering  to  the  teachings  of  experiments  which  "  hare  been  car- 
ried forward  by  careful  generalization  to  well-grounded  conclu- 
sions." 

As  an  offset  to  the  charge  that  free-trade  tariffs  have  always 
ended  in  panics  and  long  periods  of  financial  distress,  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  point  to  the  fact  that  a  financial 
panic  of  great  severity  fell  upon  the  country  in  1873,  when  the 
protective  tariff  of  1861  was  in  full  force,  and  that,  therefore, 
panic  and  distress  follow  periods  of  protection  as  well  as  periods 
of  free  trade.  It  is  true  that  a  financial  panic  occurred  in  1873, 
and  its  existence  would  blunt  the  force  of  my  argument  if  there 
were  not  an  imperatively  truthful  way  of  accounting  for  it  as 
a  distinct  result  from  entirely  distinct  causes.  The  panic  of 
1873  was  widely  different  in  its  true  origin  from  those  which 
I  have  been  exposing.  The  Civil  "War,  which  closed  in  1865,  had 
sacrificed  on  both  sides  a  vast  amount  of  property.  Reckoning 
the  money  directly  expended,  the  value  of  property  destroyed,  and 
the  production  arrested  and  prevented,  the  total  is  estimated  to 
be  nine  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  The  producers  of  the  coun- 
try had  been  seriously  diminished  in  number.  A  half-million 
men  had  been  killed.  A  million  more  had  been  disabled  in  various 
degrees.  Help  was  needed  in  the  honorable  form  of  pensions,  and 
the  aggregate  required  for  this  purpose  exceeded  all  anticipation 
and  has  annually  absorbed  an  immense  proportion  of  the  national 
income.  The  public  debt  that  must  be  funded  reached  nearly 
three  thousand  millions,  demanding  at  the  beginning  more  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  for  annual  interest. 
A  great  proportion  of  the  debt,  when  funding  was  complete,  was 
held  in  Europe,  calling  for  an  enormous  export  of  gold,  or  its  equiv- 
alent, to  meet  the  interest. 

Beside  these  burdens  upon  the  people,  the  country  was  on 
a  basis  of  paper  money,  and  all  gold  payments  added  a  heavy 
premium  to  the  weight  of  the  obligation.  The  situation  was 
without  parallel.  The  speculative  mania  which  always  accom- 
panies war  had  swollen  private  obligations  to  a  perilous  extent, 
and  the  important  question  arose  of  restoring  coin  payment.  On 
the  one  hand,  it  was  contended  that  to  enforce  the  measure 
would  create  a  panic  by  the  shrinkage  of  prices  which  would 
follow ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  urged  with  equal  zeal  that 
to  postpone  it  longer  would  increase  the  general  distrust  among 


fie  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIEF  QUESTION. 

the  people  as  to  the  real  condition  of  the  country,  and  thus  add 
to  the  severity  of  the  panic  if  one  should  be  precipitated. 

Notwithstanding  the  evil  prophecies  on  both  sides,  the  panic 
did  not  come  until  eight  and  a  half  years  after  the  firing  of  the 
last  gun  in  the  Civil  War.  Nor  did  it  come  until  after  two  great 
calamities  in  the  years  immediately  preceding  had  caused  tlie  ex- 
penditure of  more  than  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  suddenly 
withdrawn  from  the  ordinary  channels  of  business.  The  rapid 
and  extensive  rebuilding  in  Chicago  and  Boston  after  the  destruct- 
ive fires  of  1871  and  1872  had  a  closer  connection  with  the  panic 
of  1873  than  is  commonly  thought.  Still  further,  the  six-years' 
depression,  from  1873  to  1879,  involved  individual  suffering  rather 
than  general  distress.  The  country  as  a  whole  never  advanced  in 
wealth  more  rapidly  than  during  tliat  period.  The  entire  ex- 
perience strengthened  the  belief  that  the  war  for  the  Union  30uld 
not  have  been  maintained  upon  a  free-trade  basis,  and  that  tiie 
panic  of  1873  only  proved  the  strength  of  the  safeguard  wnicli 
protection  supplies  to  a  people  surrounded  by  such  multiform 
embarrassments  as  were  the  people  of  the  United  States  during 
the  few  years  immediately  following  the  war.  And,  strongest  of 
all  points,  the  financial  distress  was  relieved  and  prosperity  re- 
stored under  protection,  whereas  the  ruinous  effects  of  panics 
under  free  trade  have  never  been  removed  except  by  a  resort  to 
protection. 

Does  Mr.  Gladstone  maintain  that  I  am  confusi'ig  post  hoc 
with  propter  hoc  in  these  statements  ?  He  must  show,  then,  that 
the  United  States  during  the  war  could  have  collected  t.  great 
internal  revenue  on  domestic  manufactures  and  products,  when 
under  the  system  of  free  trade  similar  fabrics  would  daily  have 
reached  New  York  from  Europe  to  be  sold  at  pi  ices  far  below  what 
the  American  manufacturer,  with  the  heavy  excise  then  levied, 
could  afford  to  set  upon  his  goods.  And  if  the  government  could 
collect  little  from  the  customs  under  free  trade,  and  nothing  from 
internal  products,  whence  could  have  been  derived  the  taxes  to 
provide  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  public  loans,  and  what 
would  have  become  of  the  public  credit  ?  Moreover,  with  free 
trade,  which  Mr.  Gladstone  holds  to  be  always  and  under  all 
circumstances  wiser  than  protection,  we 'should  have  been  com- 
pelled to  pay  gold  coin  for  European  fabrics,  while  at  home  and 
during  the  tremendous  strain  of  the  war  legal-tender  paper  was 


FREE  THADE  OR  PROTECTION.  57 

the  universal  currency.  In  other  words,  when  the  life  of  the 
country  depended  upon  the  government's  ability  to  make  its  own 
notes  perform  the  function  o^  money,  the  Free-Traders'  policy 
would  have  demanded  daily  gold  for  daily  bread. 

Tlie  Free-Trader  cannot  offset  the  force  of  the  argument 
by  claiming  that  the  laws  reguhiting  revenue  and  trade  are, 
like  municipal  laws,  silent  during  the  shock  of  arms ;  because 
the  five  closing  years — indeed  almost  six  years — of  the  decade  in 
which  the  Rebellion  occurred  were  passed  in  peace,  and  during 
those  years  the  ravages  of  war  were  in  large  degree  repaired  and 
new  wealth  rapidly  acquired.  But  I  shall  not  give  to  Mr.  Glad- 
stone or  to  the  American  Free- Trader  the  advantage  of  seeming 
to  rest  the  defence  of  protection  upon  its  marvellous  value  during 
the  exhaustive  period  of  war.  Viewing  the  country  from  1861 
to  1889, — full  twenty-eight  years — -'the  longest  undisturbed  period 
in  which  either  protection  or  free  trade  has  been  tried  in  this 
country, — I  ask  Mr.  Gladstone  if  a  parallel  can  be  found  to  the 
material  advancement  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Gladstone  admits  the  wonderful  increase  of  wealth  ac- 
quired under  a  protective  tariff,  but  he  avers  that  the  results 
would  have  been  larger  under  free  trade.  That,  of  course,  is 
a  speculative  opinion,  and  is  entitled  to  respect  according  to  the 
knowledge  and  experience  of  the  man  who  utters  it.  Every 
statement  of  Mr.  Gladstone  carries  weight,  but  in  this  case  his 
opinion  runs  directly  counter  to  the  fifty  years  of  financial  experi- 
ence through  which  this  country  has  passed  with  alternate  trials 
of  the  two  systems.  Moreover,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  Mr,  Glad- 
stone does  not  in  this  utterance  represent  European  judgment. 
He  speaks  only  for  the  free  trade  party  of  Great  Britain  and 
their  followers  on  this  side  of  the  ocean.  The  most  eminent 
statesman  on  the  continent  of  Europe  liolds  opinions  on  this  sub- 
ject directly  the  reverse  of  those  held  by  the  most  eminent  states- 
man of  Great  Britain.  We  feel  assured  in  America  that  so  far 
as  the  question  of  protection  may  be  affected,  either  favorably  or 
adversely,  by  the  weight  of  individual  judgment,  we  may  safely 
leave  Mr.  Gladstone  to  be  answered  by  Prince  Bismarck. 

But  better  than  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  better  than 
the  opinion  of  Prince  Bismarck,  are  the  simple  facts  of  the  case, 
of  open  record  in  both  countries  A  brief  rehearsal  of  these 
facts,  with  the  pertinent  compurisou   wliich  they  suggest,  wilJ 


58  BOTB  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

give  the  best  answer  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  assumption  that  the 
United  States  would  have  made  more  rapid  progress  under  a  sys- 
tem of  free  trade.  I  take  the  official  figures  of  the  census  in 
the  United  States,  and  for  the  Uiiited  Kingdom  I  quote  from  Mr. 
Giffen,  who  is  commended  by  Mr.  Gladstone  as  the  best  authority 
in  England  : 

— In  1860  the  population  of  the  United  States  was  in  round 
numbers  31,000,000.  At  the  same  time  the  population  of 
the  United  Kingdom  was  in  round  numbers  29,000,000.  The 
wealth  of  the  United  States  at  that  time  was  fourteen 
thousand  millions  of  dollars ;  the  wealth  of  the  United 
Kingdom  was  twenty-nine  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  The 
United  Kingdom  had,  therefore,  nearly  the  same  population, 
but  more  than  double  the  wealth  of  the  United  States,  with 
machinery  for  manufactming  four-fold  greater  than  that  of 
the  United  States.  At  the  end  of  twenty  years  (1880),  it  ap- 
peared that  the  United  States  had  added  nearly  thirty  thou- 
sand millions  of  dollars  to  her  wealth,  while  the  United 
Kingdom  had  added  nearly  fifteen  thousand  millions,  or 
about  one-half. 
— During  this  period  of  twenty  years  the  United  States  had 
incurred  the  enormous  loss  of  nine  thousand  millions  of  dol- 
lars by  internal  war,  while  the  United  Kingdom  was  at 
peace,  enjoyed  exceptional  prosperity,  and  made  a  far  greater 
gain  than  in  any  other  twenty  years  of  her  history — a  gain 
which  during  four  years  was  in  large  part  due  to  the  calamity 
that  had  fallen  upon  the  United  States.  The  United  King- 
dom had  added  six  millions  to  her  population  during  the 
period  of  twenty  years,  while  the  addition  to  the  United 
States  exceeded  eighteen  millions. 
— By  the  compound  ratio  of  population  and  wealth  in  each 
country,  even  without  making  allowance  for  the  great  loss 
incurred  by  the  Civil  War,  it  is  plainly  shown  by  the  statistics 
here  presented  that  the  degree  of  progress  in  the  United 
States  under  protection  far  exceeded  that  of  the  United 
Kingdom  under  free  trade  for  the  period  named.  In  1860 
the  average  wealth,  per  capita,  of  the  United  Kingdom  was 
11,000,  while  in  the  United  States  it  was  but  $450.  In  1880 
the  United  Kingdom  had  increased  her  per-capita  wealth  to 
$1,230,  while  the  United  States  had  increased  her  per-capita 


FREB  TRADt:  OR  PROTECTION.  69 

wealth  to  $870.  The  United  Kingdom  had  in  twenty  yeara 
increased  her  per-capita  wealth  23  per  cent.,  while  the  United 
States  had  increased  her  per-capita  wealth  more  than  93  per 
cent.  If  allowance  should  be  made  for  war  losses,  the  ratio  of 
gain  in  the  United  States  would  far  exceed  100  per  cent.  Upon 
these  results,  what  ground  has  Mr.  Gladstone  for  his  assertion  ? 
With  great  confidence,  Mr.  Gladstone  proposes  to  carry  the 
war  for  free  trade  into  the  enemy's  country.  Ferhaps  the 
enemy,  who  are  only  modest  Protectionists,  may  embarrass  the 
march  of  his  logic  with  a  few  pertinent  questions,  or  at  least  abate 
the  rate  of  speed  which  he  proposes  for  his  triumphant  movement. 
I  shall  not  give  counter-theories.  I  shall  only  cite  established 
facts,  and  allow  the  facts  to  establish  their  own  theories  : 
— 1.  John  Edgar  Thompson,  late  president  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Eailroad  Company,  purchased  one  hundred  tons  of  steel  rails 
in  1862  at  a  price  (freight  paid  to  New  York;  duty  of  45  per 
cent,  unpaid)  of  $103.44  gold  coin.  (By  way  of  illustrating 
Mr.  Gladstone's  claim  to  superior  quality  of  manufactures 
under  free  trade,  the  railroad  company  states  that  many 
of  the  rails  broke  during  the  first  winter's  trial.)  In  1864 
English  rails  had  fallen  to  $88  per  ton  in  New  York,  the 
freight  paid  and  the  duty  unpaid.  English  manufacturers 
held  the  market  for  the  ensuing  six  years,  though  the  sales 
at  the  high  prices  were  limited.  In  1870  Congress  laid  a  spe- 
cific duty  of  $28  per  ton  on  steel  rails.  From  that  time  the 
home  market  has  been  held  by  our  own  manufacturers,  with  a 
steady  annual  fall  in  price,  as  the  facilities  of  production  in- 
creased, until  the  past  summer  and  autumn,  when  steel  rails 
were  selling  in  Pittsburg,  Chicago,  and  London  at  sub- 
stantially the  same  prices.  Does  any  Free-Trader  on  either 
side  of  the  ocean  honestly  believe  that  American  rails  could 
ever  have  been  furnished  as  cheaply  as  English  rails,  except 
by  the  sturdy  compel  ition  which  the  highly  protective  duty 
of  1870  enabled  the  American  manufacturers  to  maintain 
against  the  foreign  manufacturers  in  the  first  place,  and 
among  American  manufacturers  themselves  in  the  second 
place  ?  It  is  not  asserted  that  during  the  nineteen  years  since 
the  heavy  duty  was  first  established  (except  during  the  past 
few  months)  American  rails  have  been  as  cheap  in  America 
as  Englioh  rails  have  bf-en  in  England,  but  it  is  asserted  with 


60 


BOTH  STDE8  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 


—3 


perfect  confidence  that,  steadily  and  invariably,  American 
railroad  companies  have  bought  cheaper  rails  at  home  than 
they  would  have  been  able  to  buy  in  England  if  the  protec- 
tive duty  had  not  stimulated  the  manufacture  of  steel  rails 
in  tli^  United  States,  and  if  the  resulting  competition  had 
not  directly  operated  upon  the  English  market.* 
English  steel  for  locomotive  tires  imported  in  1865,  duty  paid, 
was  thirty-four  cents  per  pound  in  gold.  The  American  com- 
petition, under  a  heavy  protective  duty,  had  by  1872  reduced 
the  price  to  thirteen  cents  per  pound,  duty  paid.  At  the 
present  time  (1889)  American  steel  for  locomotive  tires,  of 
as  good  quality  as  the  English  steel  formerly  imported,  is 
furnished  at  four  and  three-quarter  cents  per  pound  and 
delivered  free  of  cost  at  the  point  where  the  locomotives  are 
manufactured.  The  lowering  of  price  was  not  a  voluntary 
act  on  the  part  of  the  English  manufacturer.  It  was  the 
direct  result  of  American  competition  under  a  protective  duty 
— a  competition  that  could  not  have  been  successfully  inaug- 
urated under  free  trade. 

In  the  year  1860,  the  last  under  a  free-trade  policy,  the 
population  of  thirty-one  millions  in  the  United  States  bought 
carpets  to  the  amount  of  twelve  millions  of  dollars.  Nearly 
half  of  the  total  amount  was  imported.  In  1888,  with  a 
population  estimated  at  sixty-three  millions,  the  aggregate 
amount  paid  for  carpets  was  neariy  sixty  millions  of  dollars, 
and  of  this  large  sum  less  than  one  million  was  paid   for 


*In  1870  only  30,000  tons  of  steel  rail 
were  manufactured  in  the  United  States. 
But  the  product  under  the  increased  duty 
of  that  year  rapidly  increased.  The  rela- 
tive number  of  tons  produced  in  England 
and  the  United  States  for  a  period  of 
twelve  years  is  shown  as  follows  r 

England.  United  States. 


1877 508,400 

1878 622,390 

1879 :..     520,231 

1880 732,910 

1881  1,023,740 

1882 1.235.785 

1883 1,097.174 

1884 784,968 

1885  706,583 

1886 730,343 

18S7 1,021.847 

1888 979,083 


385,865 

491.427 

610,682 

852,196 

1,187,770 

1,284,067 

1,148,709 

996,983 

959,471 

1,574,703 

2,101,«)4 

1,386,277 


For  the  same  period,  1877-1888  inclusive, 
the  following  table  will  show  the  number 
of  tons  of  steel  ingots  produced  in  the  two 
countries  respectively : 


Efiffland. 

1877 750,006 

1878 807,527 

1879, 834,511 

1880 1,044,382 

1881 1,441,719 

1882 1.673,619 

1883 1,553,380 

1884 1,299.676 

1885 1,304,127 

1886 1,570,520 

1887 2.089,403 

1888 2,032,794 


United  States. 

500,524 

6f  3,773 

829,439 

1,074,262 

1,374,247 

1,514.687 

1,477,345 

1,375,531 

1,519,430 

2,269,190 

2,936,033 

2,511,161 


Total  in  12  years.  9,963,454  12,980,054  Total  in  12  years,  16,401,688  18,035  622 
Under  the  protective  duty  of  1870  the  United  States  soon  manufactured  annually 
a  much  larger  quantity  of  8t«el  than  Great  Britain,  and  reduced  the  price  from  |100 
per  ton  iu  gold  to  less  than  |35  per  ton  in  gold. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PR0TEC2I0N.  61 

foreign  carpets  and  about  half  a  million  for  Oriental  rugs. 
Does  any  Free-Trader  in  England  believe  that  the  United 
States,  without  a  protective  tariif,  could  have  attained  such 
control  of  its  own  carpet  manufacture  and  trade  ?    It  will 
not  be  unnoticed,  in  this  connection,  that  under  a  2)rotective 
tariff,  the  population,  by  reason  of  better  wages,  was  enabled 
to  buy  a  far  greater  proportion  of  carpets  than  under  free 
trade.     Nor  must  it  escape  observation  that  carpets  are  now 
furnished  to  the  American  buyer  under  a  protective  tflriff 
much   cheaper   than   when  a   non-protective   tariff  allowed 
Europe  to  send  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  total  amount  used 
in  the  United  States. 
These  illustrations  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied.     In  wool- 
lens, in  cottons,  in  leather  fabrics ;  in  glass,  in  products  of  lead, 
of  brass,  of  copper;  indeed,  in  the  whole  round  of  manufactures,  it 
will  be  found  that  protection  has  brought  down'the  price  from  the 
rate  charged  by  the  importers  before  protection  had  built  up  the 
competing  manufacture  in  America.     For  many  articles  we  pay 
less  than  is  paid  in  Europe.     If  we  pay  higher  for  other  things 
than  is  paid  across  the  sea  to-day,  figures  plainly  indicate  that  we 
pay  less  than  we  should  have  been  compelled  to  pay  if  the  protect- 
ive system  had  not  been  adopted;  and  I  beg  Mr.  Gladstone's  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  American  people  have  much  more  where- 
with to  pay  than  they  ever  had  or  could  have  under  free  trade.* 

*  In  spite  of  these  facta,  President  Cleveland  made  the  following  statements, 
which  I  quote  from  his  free-trade  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1887: 

"  Our  present  tariff  laws,  as  their  primary  and  plain  effect,  raise  the  price  to  con- 
sumers of  all  articles  imported  and  subject  to  duty,  by  precisely  the  sum  paid  for 
such  duties.  Thus  the  amount  of  the  duty  measure:;  the  tax  paid  by  those  who  pur- 
chase for  use  these  imported  articles.  Many  of  these  things,  however,  are  raised  or 
manufactured  in  our  own  country,  and  the  duties  now  levied  upon  foreign  goods 
and  products  are  called  protection  to  these  home  manufact  ures,  because  tuey  ren- 
der it  possible  for  those  of  our  people  who  are  manufacturers  to  make,  these  taxed 
articles  and  sell  thern  for  a  price  equal  to  that  demanded  for  the  imported  goods 
that  have  paid  customs  duly.  So  it  happens  that,  while  com,paraiii-cly  a  few  use  the 
imported  articles,  millions  of  our  people,  who  never  use  and  never  saw  any  of  the 
foreign  products,  purchase  and  use  things  of  the  same  kind  made  in  this  country, 
and  pay  therefor  nearly  or  quite  the  same  enhanced  jirice  which  the  duty  adds  to  the 
impoHed  articles." 

I  recall  this  quotation  primarily  for  two  reasons  :  First,  Mr.  Cleveland  stands 
without  a  rival  at  the  head  of  the  free-trade  party  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is  in- 
Btructlve  to  see  how  exactly  he  adopts  the  line  of  argument  used  by  the  English  Free- 
Trader.  Second,  It  is  a  valuable  admission  from  the  head  of  the  free-trade  party 
when  he  affirms  that  "comparatively  a  few  of  our  people  use  imported  articles,'' 
and  that  there  are  "  millions  of  our  people  who  never  use  and  never  saw  any  of 
the  foreign  products."  In  what  words  could  the  complete  success  of  the  protective 
policy  in  the  United  States  be  more  fitly  expressed  i 

But  when  Mr.  Cleveland  asserted  that  our  people  pay  for  our  domestic  fabrics 
*  nearly  or  quite  the  same  enhanced  price  which  the  duty  adds  to  the  imported 


fi:^  WTH  ^TDES  OF  TitE  TARIFF  QUESTIOI^. 

Mr.  Gladstone  boldly  contends  that  *' keeping  capital  at  home 
by  protection  is  dear  production,  and  is  a  delusion  from  top  to 
bottom."  I  take  direct  issue  with  him  on  that  proposition.  Be- 
tween 1870  and  the  present  time  considerably  more  than  one  hun- 
dred thousand  miles  of  railroad  have  been  built  in  the  United 
States.  The  steel  rail  and  other  metal  connected  therewith  in- 
volved so  vast  a  sum  of  money  that  it  could  not  have  been  raised 
to  send  out  of  the  country  in  gold  coin.  The  total  cost  could  not 
have  been  less  than  five  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  "We  had  a 
large  interest  to  pay  abroad  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  nine  years 
after  1870  gold  was  at  a  premium  in  the  United  States.  During 
those  years  nearly  forty  thousand  miles  of  railway  were  constructed, 
and  to  import  English  rail  and  pay  for  it  with  gold  bought  at  a 
large  premium  would  have  been  impossible.  A  very  large  propor- 
tion of  the  railway  enterprises  would  of  necessity  have  been 
abandoned  if  the  export  of  gold  to  pay  for  the  rails  had  been  the 

articles,"  he  evidently  spoke  without  investigating  facts,  and  accepted  as  true  one  of 
those  fallacious  statements  which  have  been  used  in  the  interest  of  foreign  import- 
ers to  deceive  the  people.    Mr.  Cleveland's  argument  would  have  been  strengthened 
if  he  had  given  a  few  examples— nay,  if  he  had  given  one  example— to  sustain  his 
charge.    As  he  omitted  all  illustrations  of  hia  position,  I  venture  to  select  a  few 
which  apparently  establish  the  exact  reverse  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  statement: 
—India  rubber  goods  are  protected  by  a  duty  of  25  per  cent. ;  but,  instead  of  those 
goods  being  25  per  cent,  higher  in  price  than  the  foreign  goods,  they  are,  in  fact, 
cheaper.    They  undersell  the  English  article  in  Canada  and  successfully  com- 
pete with  Canada's  goods,  which  are  protected  by  a  duty  of  20  per  cent. 
—Patent  leather  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  20  per  cent. ;  but  patent  leather  is  not,  there, 
fore,  20  per  cent,  higher  in  the  United  States  than  elsewhere.    On  the  contrary, 
it  is  cheaper.    Five  years  ago  the  city  government  of  London  advertised  for  bids 
for  a  large  amount  of  patent  leather  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the  uniforms 
of  the  police.    There  were  bids  from  several  countries,  but  the  lowest  bid  was 
offered  by  a  manufactxirer  of  Newark,  N.  J.    He  secured  the  contract,  and  fur- 
nished the  goods  at  a  fair  profit. 

—  Steel  rails  are  selling  in  London  for  seven  pounds  sterling  per  ton.    The  duty  Is 

|15  per  ton.  The  price,  therefore,  in  the  United  States  ought  to  be,  according  to 
Mr.  Cleveland's  doctrine,  $50  per  ton.  But  in  fact  the  price  is  but  $35  per  ton, 
and  during  the  last  summer  and  autumn  was  as  low  as  $25  per  ton,  and  lai^e 
sales  were  made  at  $30  per  ton. 

—  Boots  and  shoes  are  subject  to  30  per  cent.  duty.    According  to  Mr.  Cleveland, 

they  should  be  30  per  cent,  higher  than  the  foreign  article.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
they  are  cheaper.  American  boots  and  shoes  hold  the  Canadian  market  against 
the  European  manufacture. 

Examples  of  this  kind  could  be  shown  on  almost  the  whole  tariff  list  where  an 
American  manufacture  is  firmly  established.  In  fact,  the  whole  history  of  protec- 
tion has  vindicated  what  Alexander  Hamilton  said  of  it  when  he  was  at  the  head  of 
the  Treasury  :  "  The  internal  competition  which  takes  place  soon  does  away  with 
everything  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  reduces  the  price  of  the  article  to  the 
minimum  of  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  capital  employed.  This  accords  with  the 
reason  of  the  thing  and  with  experience."  Mr.  Hamilton  thus  effectually  answers 
both  Mr.  Gladstone  and  Mr.  Cleveland. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  63 

condition  precedent  to  their  construction.  But  the  manufacture 
of  steel  rails  at  home  gave  an  immense  stimulus  to  business.  Tens 
of  thousands  of  men  were  paid  good  wages,  and  great  investments 
and  great  enrichments  followed  the  line  of  the  new  road  and 
opened  to  the  American  people  large  fields  for  enterprise  not 
theretofore  accessible. 

I  might  ask  Mr.  Gladstone  what  he  would  have  done  with  the 
labor  of  the  thousands  of  men  engaged  in  manufacturing  rail,  if 
it  had  been  judged  practicable  to  buy  the  rail  in  England  ? 
Fortunately  he  has  given  his  answer  in  advance  of  the  question, 
for  he  tells  us  that  '*  in  America  we  produce  more  cloth  and 
more  iron  at  high  prices,  instead  of  more  cereals  and  more  cotton 
at  low  prices."  The  grain-growers  of  the  West  and  the  cotton- 
growers  of  the  South  will  observe  that  Mr.  Gladstone  holds  out 
to  them  a  cheerful  prespect !  They  "should  produce  more 
cereals  and  more  cotton  at  low  prices  "  !  Mr.  Gladstone  sees  that 
the  protective  system  steadily  tends  to  keep  up  the  price  of 
"  cereals  and  cotton,"  and  he  asks  that  manufactures  of  *^  cloth 
and  iron  "  be  abandoned,  so  that  we  may  raise  "  more  cereals  and 
more  cotton  at  low  prices."  Mr.  Gladstone  evidently  considers 
the  present  prices  of  cereals  and  cotton  as  "  high  prices." 

Protectionists  owe  many  thanks  to  Mr.  Gladstone  for  his  out- 
spoken mode  of  dealing  with  this  question  of  free  trade.  He 
gives  us  his  conclusions  without  qualification  and  without  dis- 
guise. The  American  Free-Trader  is  not  so  sincere.  He  is  ever 
presenting  half-truths  and  holding  back  the  other  half,  thus 
creating  false  impressions  and  leading  to  false  conclusions.  But 
Mr.  Gladstone  is  entirely  frank.  He  tells  the  laborers  on  pro- 
tected articles  that  they  would  be  better  engaged  in  "  raising 
more  cereals  and  more  cotton  at  low  prices."  Where  does  Mr. 
Gladstone  suggest  a  market  for  the  additional  grain  and  cotton  to 
be  raised  by  American  mechanics  becoming  farmers  and  increasing 
the  production  of  those  great  staples  ?  The  foreign  market  is 
filled  with  a  competing  grain-supply  to  such  a  degree  that  already 
the  price  of  wheat  is  unduly  lowered  to  the  Western  farmer.  The 
farmer  needs  a  still  larger  home  consumption  of  his  grain,  while 
Mr.  Gladstone  thinks  he  needs  a  still  larger  home  production. 
The  legitimate  involvement  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  argument  is  that  all 
mechanical  and  manufacturing  enterprises  in  America  producing 
articles  of  higher  price  than  the  same  produced  in  Europe  should 


64  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

be  abandoned,  and  the  laborers  so  engaged  should  be  turned  to 
the  production  of  "more  cereals  and  more  cotton  at  low  prices"  ! 
The  Western  farmer's  instinct  is  wiser  than  Mr,  Gladstone's  phil- 
osophy. The  farmer  knows  that  the  larger  the  home  market 
the  better  are  his  prices,  and  that  as  the  home  market  is  narrowed 
his  prices  fall. 

Mr.  Gladstone's  pregnant  suggestion  really  exhibits  the  thought 
that  lies  deep  in  the  British  mind  :  that  the  mechanic  arts  and 
the  manufacturing  processes  should  be  left  lo  Great  Britain  and 
the  production  of  raw  material  should  be  left  to  America.  It  is 
the  old  colonial  idea  of  the  last  century,  when  the  establishment 
of  manufactures  on  this  side  of  the  ocean  was  regarded  with  great 
jealousy  by  British  statesmen  and  British  merchants.  Some 
years  before  the  Revolutionary  struggle  began.  Parliament  had 
declared  that  "  the  erecting  of  manufactories  in  the  colonies 
tends  to  lessen  their  dependence  on  Great  Britain."  A  few  years 
later  the  British  Board  of  Trade  reported  to  Parliament  that 
*•'  manufactures  in  the  American  colonies  interfere  with  profits 
made  by  British  merchants."  The  same  body  petitioned  Parlia- 
ment that  "  some  measures  should  be  provided  to  prevent  the 
manufacturing  of  woollen  and  linen  goods  in  the  colonies." 
Finally  Parliament  declared  that  "  colonial  manufacturing  was 
prejudicial  to  the  trade  and  manufactures  of  Great  Britain." 
These  outrageous  sentiments  (the  colonists  characterized  them 
much  more  severely)  were  cherished  in  the  time  of  the  glorious 
Georges,  in  the  era  of  Walpole  and  the  elder  Pitt. 

I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  words  carry  with 
them  an  approval,  even  retrospectively,  oi  this  course  toward  the 
colonies,  but  there  is  a  remarkable  similarity  to  the  old  policy  in 
the  fundamental  idea  that  causes  him  in  1889  to  suggest  that  Ameri- 
cans produce  "  too  much  cloth  and  too  much  iron,"  and  should  turn 
their  labor  to  "  low-priced  cereals  and  low-priced  cotton."  Are 
we  not  justified  in  concluding  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  theory  of 
free  trade,  in  all  its  generalizations  and  specifications,  is  fitted 
exactly  to  the  condition  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  British  hos- 
tility to  American  protection  finds  its  deep  foundation  in  the  fact 
— to  quote  the  old  phrases — that  "  it  is  prejudicial  to  the  trade 
and  manufactures  of  Great  Britain,"  that  "  it  lessens  our  depend- 
ence upon  Great  Britain,'*  and  that  "  it  interferes  with  profits 
made  by  British  merchants"  ? 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  (55 

Mr.  Gladstone  makes  another  statement  of  great  frankness 
and  of  great  value.  Comparing  the  pursuits  in  the  United  States 
which  require  no  protection  with  those  that  are  protected,  he 
says  :  "No  adversary  will,  I  think,  venture  upon  saying  that  the 
profits  are  larger  in  protected  than  in  unprotected  industries." 
This  is  very  true,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  may  be  surprised  to  hear 
that  the  constant  objection  made  by  American  Free-Traders 
against  the  **  protected  industries,"  as  he  terms  them,  is  that  the 
profits  derived  from  them  are  illegitimately  large.  Mr.  Gladstone 
sees  clearly  that  as  a  rule  this  is  not  true,  and  he  at  once  discerns 
the  reason.  He  says  "the  best  opinions  seem  to  testify  that  in 
your  protected  trades  profits  are  hard  pressed  by  wages." 
The  Free-Traders  of  America  try  by  every  cunning  device 
to  hide  this  fact.  Its  admission  is  fatal  to  their  cause. 
Not  one  free-trade  organ  or  leader  among  them  all  dares 
to  take  his  position  beside  Mr.  Gladstone  and  plainly  tell  the 
truth  to  the  American  laborer.  Not  one  free-trade  organ  or 
leader  dares  frankly  to  say  to  the  great  body  of  American  work- 
men that  the  destruction  of  protection  inevitably  and  largely  re- 
duces their  daily  wages.  I  thank  Mr.  Gladstone  for  this  testi- 
mony, at  once  accurate  and  acute.  It  is  fair  to  presume  that  he 
intends  it  to  be  applied  to  the  unprotected  manufacturer  in  Eng- 
land and  to  the  protected  manufacturer  in  America,  both  produc- 
ing the  same  article.  His  logic  gives,  and  I  have  no  doubt  truly, 
as  large  profit  to  the  manufacturer  of  England,  selling  at  a  low 
price,  as  to  the  manufacturer  of  America,  selling  at  a  high 
price — the  difference  consisting  wholly  in  the  superior  wages  paid 
to  the  American  mechanic. 

There  is  another  important  effect  of  protective  duties  which 
Mr.  Gladstone  does  not  include  in  his  frank  admission.  He  sees 
that  the  laborers  in  what  he  calls  the  "protected  industries"  se- 
•ure  high  pay,  especially  as  compared  with  the  European  school 
of  wages.  He  periiaps  does  not  see  that  the  effect  is  to  raise  the 
wages  of  all  persons  in  the  United  States  engaged  in  what  Mr. 
Gladstone  culls  the  "unprotected  industries."  Printers,  brick- 
layers, carpenters,  and  all  others  of  that  class  are  paid  as  high 
wages  as  those  of  any  other  trade  or  calling,  but  if  the  wages  of 
all  those  in  the  protected  classes  were  suddenly  struck  down  to 
the  English  standard,  the  others  must  follow.  A  million  men 
cannot  be  kept  at  work  for  half  the  pay  that  another  million  men 


n6  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

are  receiving  in  the  same  country.     Both  classes  must  go  up  or 
must  go  down  together. 

Mr.  Gladstone  makes  another  contention,  in  which,  from  the 
American  point  of  view,  he  leaves  out  of  sight  a  controlling 
factor,  and  hence  refers  an  effect  to  the  wrong  cause.  Kegard- 
ing  the  advance  of  wages  in  England,  he  says  :  "  Wages  which 
have  been  partially  and  relatively  higher  under  protection  have 
become  both  generally  and  absolutely  higher,  and  greatly  higher, 
under  free  trade."  I  do  not  doubt  the  fact,  but  I  venture  to 
suggest  that  such  advance  in  wages  as  there  has  been  in  England 
is  referable  to  another  and  a  palpable  cause — namely,  the  higher 
wages  in  the  United  States,  which  have  constantly  tempted  British 
mechanics  to  emigrate,  and  which  would  have  tempted  many  more 
if  the  inducement  of  an  advance  in  wages  at  home  had  not  been 
interposed.  Especially  have  wages  been  high  and  tempting  in  the 
United  States  since  1861,  when  the  country  became  firmly  pro- 
tective by  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tariff.  It  will  be  found, 
I  think,  that  the  advance  of  wages  in  England  corresponds 
precisely  in  time,  though  not  in  degree,  with  the  advance 
in  the  United  States,  and  the  advance  in  both  cases  was  directly 
due  to  the  firm  establishment  of  protection  in  this  country  as  a 
national  policy.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  American 
wages  are  still  from  70  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  higher  than  British 
wages.  If  a  policy  of  free  trade  should  be  adopted  in  the  United 
States,  the  reduction  of  wages  which  would  follow  here  would 
promptly  lead  to  a  reduction  in  England.  The  operatives  of 
Manchester,  Leeds,  and  Sheffield  recognize  this  fact  as  clearly  as 
do  the  proprietors  who  pay  the  advanced  wages,  and  more  clearly 
than  do  certain  political  economists  who  think  the  world  of  com- 
merce and  manufactures  can  be  unerringly  directed  by  a  theory 
evolved  in  a  closet  without  sufficient  data,  and  applied  to  an  in- 
exact science. 

The  zeal  of  Mr.  Gladstone  for  free  trade  reaches  its  highest 
point  in  the  declaration  that  "all  protection  is  morally  as  well  as 
economically  bad."  He  is  right  in  making  this  his  strongest 
ground  of  opposition,  if  protection  is  a  question  of  morals.  But 
his  assertion  leaves  him  in  an  attitude  of  personal  inconsistency. 
There  is  protection  on  sea  as  well  as  on  land.  Indeed,  the  most 
palpable  and  effective  form  of  protection  is  in  the  direct  pay- 
ment of  public  money  to  a  line  of  steamers  that  could  not  b« 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  67 

maintained  without  that  form  of  aid.  I  do  not  say  that  such 
aid  is  unwise  protection  ;  least  of  all  do  I  say  it  is  immoral.  On 
the  contrary,  I  think  it  has  often  proved  the  highest  commercial 
wisdom,  without  in  the  least  infringing  upon  the  domain  of 
morals.  Mr.  Gladstone,  however,  commits  himself  to  the  prin- 
ciple that  "all  protection  is  morally  bad."  If  this  has  been  his 
belief  ever  since  he  became  an  advocate  of  free  trade,  his  con- 
science must  have  received  many  and  severe  wounds  as  session 
after  session,  while  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  he  carried 
through  Parliament  a  bounty — may  I  not  say  a  direct  protection  ? 
— of  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  pounds  sterling  to  a  line 
of  steamers  running  between  England  and  the  United  States, — a 
protection  that  began  six  years  before  free  trade  was  proclaimed 
in  English  manufactures,  and  continued  nearly  twenty  years  after. 
In  the  whole  period  of  twenty-five  years  an  aggregate  of  many 
millions  of  dollars  was  paid  out  to  protect  the  English  line  against 
all  competition. 

It  may  be  urged  that  this  sum  was  paid  for  carrying  the 
Anglo-American  mails,  but  that  argument  will  not  avail  a  Free- 
Trader,  because  steamers  of  other  nationalities  stood  ready  to 
carry  the  mails  at  a  far  cheaper  rate.  .  Nay,  a  few  years  ago, 
possibly  when  Mr.  Gladstone  was  Premier  of  England,  public  bids 
were  asked  to  carry  the  Anglo-Indian  mails.  A  French  line 
offered  a  lower  bid  than  any  English  line,  but  the  English  Gov- 
ernment disregarded  the  French  bid  and  gave  the  contract  to 
the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  line,  owned  by  a  well-known  English 
company.  Still  later,  the  German  Lloyd  Company  contracted  to 
carry  the  Anglo-American  mails  cheaper  than  any  English  line 
offered,  and  the  German  company  actually  began  to  perform  the 
duty.  But  Englishmen  did  not  want  that  kind  of  free  trade,  and 
they  broke  the  contract  with  the  German  line  and  again  gave 
protection  to  the  English  ships.  Does  not  this  justify  the  opin- 
ion that  the  English  policy  of  free  trade  is  urged  where  England 
can  hold  the  field  against  rivals,  and  that  when  competition  leaves 
her  behind  she  repudiates  free  trade  and  substitutes  the  most 
pronounced  form  of  protection  ? 

Does  Mr.  Gladstone's  estimate  of  the  immorality  of  protection 
apply  only  to  protection  on  land,  or  is  supremacy  on  the  sea  so 
important  to  British  interests  that  it  is  better  to  throw  morals  to 
the  wind  and  resort  to  whatever  degree  of  protection  may  be  nee- 


68  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

essary  to  secure  the  lead  to  English  ships  ?  The  doctrine  of  im- 
proving harbors  in  the  United  States  by  the  National  Government 
was  for  many  years  severely  contested,  the  strict  construction 
party  maintaining  that  it  must  be  confined  to  harbors  on  the  sea- 
coast  at  points  where  foreign  commerce  reaches  the  country.  Dur- 
ing one  of  the  many  discussions  over  this  narrow  construction,  an 
Ohio  member  of  Congress  declared  that  he  "  could  not  think  much 
of  a  Constitution  that  would  not  stand  being  dipped  in  fresh  water 
as  well  as  salt."  I  fear  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  code  of  morals  on 
this  question  of  protection  will  not  secure  much  respect  in  other 
countries  so  long  as  it  spoils  in  salt  water. 

It  will  not  escape  Mr.  Gladstone's  keen  observation  that 
British  interests  in  navigation  flourish  with  less  rivalry  and 
have  increased  in  greater  proportion  than  any  other  of  the 
great  interests  of  the  United  Kingdom.  I  ask  his  candid 
admission  that  it  is  the  one  interest  which  England  has  protected 
steadily  and  determinedly,  regardless  of  consistency  and  regard- 
less of  expense.  Nor  will  Mr.  Gladstone  fail  to  note  that 
navigation  is  the  weakest  of  the  great  interests  in  the  United 
States,  because  it  is  the  one  which  the  National  Government  has 
constantly  refused  to  protect.  If  since  the  Civil  War  the  United 
States  had  spent  in  protecting  her  shipping  merely  the  annual  in- 
terest on  the  great  sum  which  England  has  expended  to  protect 
her  ocean  traffic,  American  fleets  would  now  be  rivalling  the  fleets 
of  England,  as  they  rivalled  them  before  the  war,  on  every  sea 
where  the  prospect  of  commercial  gain  invites  the  American 
flag. 

The  failure  of  the  United  States  to  encourage  and  establish 
commercial  lines  of  American  ships  is  in  strange  contrast  with 
the  zealous  efforts  made  to  extend  lines  of  railway  inside  the 
country,  even  to  the  point  of  anticipating  the  real  needs  of 
many  sections.  If  all  the  advances  to  railway  companies,  together 
with  the  outright  gifts  by  towns,  cities,  counties.  States  and  Na- 
tion be  added  together,  the  money  value  would  not  fall  short  of  a 
thousand  millions  of  dollars.  No  effort  seems  too  great  for  our 
people  when  the  interior  of  the  country  is  to  be  connected  with 
the  seaboard.  But  when  the  suggestion  is  made  to  connect  our 
seaboard  with  commercial  cities  of  other  countries  by  lines  of 
steamships,  the  public  mind  is  at  once  disturbed  by  the  cry  of 
**  subsidy."    We  really  feel  as  much  afraid  of  protection  at  sea 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  69 

as  Mr.  Gladstone  is  of  protection  on  land.  The  positions  of  the 
American  Congress  and  the  English  Parliament  on  this  subject  are 
precisely  reversed.  England  has  never  been  affrighted  by  the 
word  subsidy,  and,  while  we  have  stood  still  in  impotent  fear,  she 
has  taken  possession  of  the  seas  by  the  judicious,  and  even  the 
lavish,  interposition  of  pecuniary  aid.  I  have  already  said  that 
the  interest  on  the  amount  which  England  has  paid  for  this 
object  since  she  began  it  with  great  energy,  fifty  years 
ago,  would  give  all  the  stimulus  needed  for  the  rapid  expansion 
of  our  commerce.  Let  it  be  added  that  if  the  government  of 
the  United  States  will  for  twenty  years  to  come  give  merely  the 
interest  upon  the  interest,  at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent.,  on  the 
amount  which  has  been  a  free  gift  to  railroads,  every  steam  line 
needed  on  the  Atlantic,  the  Pacific,  and  the  Gulf  will  spring  into 
existence  within  two  years  from  the  passage  of  the  act.  It  is  but 
a  few  years  since  Congress  twice  refused  to  give  even  1125,000 
per  annum  to  secure  an  admirable  line  of  steamers  from  New 
York  to  the  four  largest  ports  of  Brazil.  And  the  sum  of 
$125,000  is  but  the  interest  upon  the  interest  of  the  interest,  at  5 
per  cent.,  of  the  gross  amount  freely  given  to  the  construction  of 
railroads  within  the  Union.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  we  have  lost 
all  prestige  on  the  sea  ? 

The  opposition  to  the  policy  of  extending  our  foreign  com- 
merce by  aiding  steamship  lines  with  a  small  sum,  just  as  we  have 
aided  internal  commerce  on  railroads  with  a  vast  sum,  originates 
with  the  American  Free-Trader.  Mr.  Gladstone  cannot  fail  to  see 
how  advantageous  the  success  of  this  free- trade  effort  in  the 
United  States  must  prove  to  Great  Britain.  The  steady  argument 
of  the  Free-Trader  is  that,  if  the  steamship  lines  were  established, 
we  could  not  increase  our  trade  because  we  produce  under  our 
protective  tariff  nothing  that  can  compete  in  neutral  markets  with 
articles  of  the  like  kind  from  England.  How  then  can  the  Free- 
Trader  explain  the  fact  that  a  long  list  of  articles  manufactured 
in  the  United  States  find  ready  and  large  sale  in  Canada  ?  The 
Canadian  tariff  is  the  same  upon  English  and  American  goods. 
Transportation  from  England  to  Quebec  or  Montreal  is  cheaper 
than  from  the  manufacturing  centres  of  the  United  States  to  the 
same  points.  The  difference  is  not  great,  but  it  is  in  favor  of  the 
English  shipper  across  the  seas,  and  not  of  the  American  shipper 
by  railway.     It  is  for  the  Free-Trader  to  explain  why,  if  th^  cost 


70  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

a 

of  transportation  be  made  the  same,  the  United  States  cannot 
compete  with  England  in  every  country  in  South  America  in  all 
the  articles  of  which  we  sell  a  larger  amount  in  Canada  than 
England  does.  I  append  a  note  naming  the  American  articles 
sold  in  Canada,  and  the  Free-Trader,  if  candid,  will  adm.it  that 
the  list  is  one  which  is  constantly  and  rapidly  increasing.* 

Giving  heed  to  the  cry  of  the  professional  Free-Trader  in 
America,  Mr.  Gladstone  feels  sure  that,  though  the  protected 
manufacturers  in  the  United  States  may  flourish  and  prosper,  they 
do  80  at  the  expense  of  the  farmer,  who  is  in  every  conceivable 
form,  according  to  the  free-trade  dictum,  the  helpless  victim  of 
protection.  Both  Mr.  Gladstone  and  the  American  Free -Trader 
have,  then,  the  duty  of  explaining  why  the  agricultural  States  of 
the  West  have  giown  in  wealth  during  the  long  period  of  protec- 
tion at  a  more  rapid  rate  than  the  manufacturing  States  of  the 
East.  The  statement  of  the  Free-Trader  can  be  conclusively 
answered  by  referring  to  the  census  of  the  United  States  for  the 
year  1860,  and  also  for  the  year  1880  : 

—  In  1860,  eight  manufacturing  States  of  the  East  (the  six  of 

New  England,  together  with  New  York  and  Pennsylvania) 
returned  an  aggregate  wealth  of  $5,123,000,000.  Twenty 
years  afterwards,  by  the  census  of  1880,  the  same  States  re- 
turned an  aggregate  wealth  of  $16,228,000,000.  The  rate  of 
increase  for  the  twenty  years  was  slightly  more  than  216  per 
cent. 

—  Let  us  see   how   the  agricultural    States  fared   during   this 

period.  By  the  census  of  1860,  eight  agricultural  States  of 
the  West  (Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Min- 
nesota, Nebraska,  and  Wisconsin)  returned  an  aggregate 
wealth  of  $2,271,000,000.  Twenty  years  afterwards,  by  the 
census  of  1880  (protection  all  the  while  in  full  force),  these 
same  States  returned  an  aggregate  wealth  of  $11,268,000,000. 
The  rate  of  increase  for  the  twenty  years  was  396  percent., 

*  The  following  articles  of  American  manufacture  are  sold  in  Canada  more 
largely  than  like  articles  of  English  maniifacture: 

Braes  goods,  copper  goods,  cordage,  ginghams,  bottles,  flasks,  india-rubber  goods, 
printing-iuk,  inirrain  carpets,  wood  manufactures,  twines,  tinware,  sliip-rigglng, 
wall-paper,  writing-paper,  envelopes,  blank  books,  strawboard  paper,  boots  and 
shoes,  leather  and  skins,  sole  leather,  leather  goods,  patent  leather,  figured  oil-cloths, 
grain  drills,  harrows,  harvesters,  hoes,  forks,  mowing-machines,  scythes,  spades, 
shovels,  builders'  and  cabinet-makers'  hardware,  house-fiirnisbing  hardware,  nails, 
fire-arms,  sewing-machines,  screws,  stoves,  axes,  jewelry  (sterling  and  plated), 
silver-ware,  lamps,  locomDtives,  hatchets,  hammert'.  saws,  mechanics'  tools,  organs, 
pianos,  "notions,"  plain  house-fiu'niturc,  especially  not  el  furnitiire. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTlOrf.  tL 

or  180  per  cent,  greater  than  the  increase  in  the  eight  manu- 
facturing States  of  the  East. 
— The  case  will  be  equally  striking  if  we  take  the  fifteen  South- 
ern States  that  were  siaveholding  in  1860.     By  the  census  of 
that  year,  the  aggregate  return  of  their  property  was  $6,792,- 
000,000.  But  12,000,000,000  was  slave  property.     Deducting 
that,  the  total  property  amounted  to  $4,792,000,000.     Their 
aggregate  return  of  wealth  by  the  census  of  1880  was  $8,633,- 
000,000.     The  rate  of  increase  for  the  twenty  years  was  80 
per  cent.     Consider  that  during  this  period  eleven  States  of 
the  South  were  impoverished  by  civfl  war  to  an  extent  far 
greater  than  any  country  has  been  despoiled  in  the  wars  of 
modern  Europe.     Consider  that  the  labor  system  on  which 
previous  wealth  had  been  acquired  in  the  South  was  entirely 
broken  up.     And  yet,  at  the  end  of  twenty  years,  the  South- 
ern States  had  repaired  all  their  enormous  losses  and  pos- 
sessed nearly  double  the  wealth  they  had  ever  known  before. 
Do  not  these  figures  incontestably  show  that  the  agricultural 
sections  of  the  country,  AVest  and  South,  have  prospered  even 
beyond  the  manufacturing  sections.  East  and  North  ?     And 
all  this  not  merely  with  protection,  but  because  of  protec- 
tion ! 
As  Mr.  Gladstone  considers  protection  immoral,  he  defines  its 
specific  offence  as  "  robbery."     To  have  been  fully  equal  to  the 
American  standard   of  free-trade    vituperation,    Mr.    Gladstone 
should  have  denounced  our  manufacturers  as  "Robber  Barons." 
This  is  the  current  ph:^se  with  a  class  who  are  perhaps  more 
noisy  than  numerous.      The  intention  of  the  phrase  is  to  create 
popular  prejudice  against  American  manufacturers  as  growing 
rich  at  the  expense  of  the  people.      This  accusation  is  so  per- 
sistently repeated  that  its  authors  evidently  regard  it  as  important 
to  their  cause.     It  may  perhaps  surprise  Mr.  Gladstone  to  be  told 
that  out  of  the  fifty  largest  fortunes  in  the  United  States — those 
that  have  arrested  public  attention  within  the  last  ten  years — cer- 
tainly not  more  than  one  has  been  derived  from  protected  manu- 
facturing ;  and  this  was  amassed  by  a  gentleman  of  the  same  Scotch 
blood  with  Mr.  Gladstone  himself.     The  forty-nine  other  fortunes 
were  acquired  from  railway  and  telegraph  investments,  from  real- 
estate  investments,  from  the  import  and  sale  of  foreign  goods, 
from  banking,  from  speculations  in  the  stock  market,  from  fort' 


yg  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

unate  mining  inyestments,  from  patented  inventions,  and  more 
than  one  from  proprietary  medicines. 

It  is  safe  to  go  even  farther  and  state  that,  in  the  one  hundred 
largest  fortunes  that  have  been  viewed  as  such  in  the  past  ten 
years,  not  five  have  been  derived  from  the  profits  of  protected 
manufactures.  Their  migin  will  be  found  in  the  fields  of  invest- 
ment already  referred  to.  Moreover,  the  fear  of  the  evil  effect 
of  large  fortunes  is  exaggerated.  Fortunes  rapidly  change. 
With  us  wealth  seldom  lasts  beyond  two  generations.  There  is 
but  one  family  in  the  United  States  recognized  as  possessing 
large  wealth  for  four  consecutive  generations.  When  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son struck  the  blow  that  broke  down  the  right  of  primogeniture 
and  destroyed  the  privilege  of  entail,  he  swept  away  the  only 
ground  upon  which  wealth  can  be  secured  to  one  family  for  a 
long  period.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  heirs  in  successive 
generations,  the  rightful  assertion  of  equality  among  children  of 
the  same  parents,  the  ready  destruction  of  wills  that  depart  too 
far  from  this  principle  of  right,  and,  above  all,  the  uncertainty 
and  the  accidents  of  investment,  scatter  fortunes  to  the  wind  and 
give  to  them  all  the  uncertainty  that  betides  human  existence. 

In  no  event  can  the  growth  of  large  fortunes  be  laid  to  the 
charge  of  the  protective  policy.  Protection  ha-s  proved  a  distrib- 
utor of  great  sums  of  money;  not  an  agency  for  amassing  it  in 
the  hands  of  a  few.  The  records  of  our  savings-banks  and  building 
associations  can  be  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  strtement.  The 
benefit  of  protection  goes  first  and  last  to  the  men  who  earn  their 
bread  in  the  sweat  of  their  faces.  The  auspicious  and  momentous 
result  is  that  never  before  in  the  history  of  the  world  has  comfort 
been  enjoyed,  education  acquired,  and  independence  secured  by  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  total  population  as  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

James  G.  Blaiije. 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY. 
By  the   Hon.    Roger   Q.    Mills. 


^    *>' 


Hon.  Roger  Q,  Mills. 


"  When  the  government  interferes  and  requires  the  producer  to  pay 
a  tax  for  the  privilege  of  selling  in  its  markets,  it  necessarily  raises  the 
price  which  its  citizens  must  pay.  K  the  object  of  the  tax  is  to  restrict  or 
prohibit  the  importation  of  the  article  in  order  to  give  the  market  to  the 
home  producer,  which  he  could  not  hold  without  it  on  account  of  the 
greater  cost  required  to  produce  the  competing  article,  it  imposes  a  double 
tax  on  the  conbtuners  of  both  the  domestic  and  foreign  articles.  No  peo- 
ple ever  have  increased  or  ever  wUl  increase  in  wealth  by  the  help  of  taxa- 
tion. No  people  can  increase  in  wealth  by  being  kept  out  of  market 
with  their  products.  Taking  one  dollar  out  of  a  man's  pocket  does  not 
put  two  in."  So  says  the  subject  of  our  sketch,  defining  in  vigorous  lan- 
guage his  position  on  the  world-famed  tariif  question. 

Roger  Quarles  Mills  is  by  birth  a  Kentuckian,  having  been  bom  in 
Todd  Co.  in  that  State  in  1833.  The  family  came  originally  from  Vir- 
ginia. Of  a  restless,  ambitiovis  disposition,  he  set  his  face  still  further 
southward  while  still  in  his  teens,  and  began  the  study  of  law  in  the 
little  town  of  Palestine,  Tex.  Three  years  of  aasiduovis  toil  over  Black- 
stone  and  other  authorities,  together  with  much  burning  of  midnight  oil, 
and  the  aspirant  for  legal  honors  was  deemed  qualified  to  practice.  Not 
being  of  age,  however,  a  special  enactment  of  the  Legislature  was  passed 
whereby  he  was  fully  and  formally  admitted  to  the  bar  and  began  his 
career  at  the  town  of  Corsicana,  which  place  he  has  ever  since  made  his 
permanent  abode. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  Mr.  Mills  was  swift  to  respond  to 
the  call  of  the  Confederate  States  for  volunteers.  Throughout  the  bitter 
struggle  he  did  active  service,  ofttimes  wounded  and  nmning  some  hair- 
breadth escapes,  but  managing  through  aU  to  survive.  When  peace 
was  declared  he  retired  with  the  rank  of  colonel. 

In  1873  he  was  sent  to  (Congress  as  Representative-at-Large  for  the 
State  of  Texas.  He  had  become  one  of  the  most  popular  men  in  his 
community.  Above  all  he  had  attained  a  reputation  for  honesty 
and  truthfulness  which  went  far  to  justify  the  confidence  reposed  in  him 
by  his  constituents.  Later  on  he  was  chosen  as  the  representative  of  the 
Fourth  District,  and  then  that  of  tlie  Ninth,  till  from  the  Forty -second  to 


76  ^ON.  ROGER  Q.  MILLS. 

the  present  Fifty-first  Congress  he  has  occupied  a  seat  in  the  House — a 
record  equaled  by  few. 

In  tlie  interest  of  tariff  reduction  he  has  labored  long  and  earnestly.  A 
stanch  Democrat,  an  ardent  free-trader,  he  has  grown  gray  in  the  service 
of  his  party.  Closely  allied  during  the  Cleveland  administration  with 
what  was  known  as  '*  tlie  President's  Party,"  his  efforts  during  the 
spring  of  1888  to  obtain  a  reduction  of  the  Treasury  surplus  revenues  are 
still  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people. 

In  debate  Mr.  Mills  is  dignified  and  pronouncedly  deUberate,  while  at 
the  same  time  his  manner  of  presenting  a  measure  is  done  so  logically  and 
clearly  as  to  leave  little  room  for  adverse  criticism.  An  announcement  that 
he  will  speak  on  a  certain  day  is  sufficient  to  fill  the  galleries  of  the  House 
to  their  full  capacity. 

His  personal  appearance  challenges  respectful  admiration.  Tall  and 
commanding  in  figure,  he  is  conspicuous  among  his  colleagues.  In 
conversation  he  is  extremely  pleasant,  Uberal  in  his  opinions,  candid,  yet 
modest  in  stating  his  views  of  men  and  measures,  and  always  ready  to 
listen  patiently  to  the  views  of  his  opponents. 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY. 

BY  THB  HON.    ROGER  Q.    MILLS,    REPRESENTATIVE   IN   CONGRESS 

FROM   TEXAS. 


The  "  duel  *'  between  Mr.  Gladstone  and  Mr.  Blaine  was  foi 
commercial  freedom  on  one  side  and  commercial  restriction  on  the 
other.  Each  side  was  represented  by  its  best  man,  and  the  sub- 
ject was  discussed  with  great  ability.  Mr.  Gladstone  opens  the 
discussion  and  goes  straight  to  the  heart  of  the  controversy.  He 
shows  what  commerce  is,  what  it  does,  and  what  it  has  accom- 
plished for  Great  Britain  since  its  emancipation.  He  shows  that 
it  has  increased  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  nation,  given  better 
employment  and  higher  wages  to  workmen,  and  supplied  them 
with  more,  cheaper,  and  better  food  than  they  had  ever  had  before. 

The  question  is  not,  as  he  says,  whether  the  rate  of  wages  is 
lower  in  Great  Britain  than  in  America,  or  whether  the  American 
workman  is  better  off  than  the  workman  in  England.  It  is  not  a 
question  between  countries,  but  between  systems.  If  the  rate  of 
wages  alone  is  to  be  taken  as  the  test  of  the  wisdom  of  oommercial 
restriction,  the  jury  will  be  hung  and  there  can  be  no  verdict,  be- 
cause the  United  States  has  restriction  and  a  higher  rate  of  wages 


Note.— The  purpose  of  Mr.  Mills  in  this  contribution  i«  to  controvert  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  protection  advanced  by  Mr.  Blaine  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Gladstone. 
Mr.  MiUa's  views  are  further  elaborated  and  enforced  in  a  later  chapter  of  this 
volume'entitled  "  FreeTr.ide  and  Slave  Trade  "  (see  page  251)— hare  published  for  the 
first  time— in  which  he  answers  the  plea  for  protection  made  by  Mr.  Andrew  C  -r- 
negie  in  the  chapter  entitled  '  Summing  up  the  T  iritf  Discusf  ion  "  (see  page  195). 


78  BOTH  SIDES  OF  TffE  TARIFF  QUESTIOlf. 

than  England,  and  England  has  freedom  and  a  higher  rate  of 
wages  than  France,  Germany,  Austria,  or  any  other  country  in 
Europe  that  has  restriction.  It  is  evident  from  this  that  some 
other  factor  is  exercising  a  potent  influence  either  in  depressing 
or  raising  wages.  Freedom  of  commercial  exchange  may  be  one 
of  the  forces,  but  there  are  others  cooperating  with  it.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone shows  that  since  England  adopted  the  policy  of  commercial 
freedom  the  wages  of  her  working  people  have  increased  from  50 
to  100  per  cent.,  and  that  from  1843  to  1883  the  income  from 
capital  increased  210  per  cent.,  while  the  income  of  the  working 
•jlasses  increased  160  per  cent.  The  wealth  of  both  capitalist  and 
workmen  might  increase  in  either  country  and  under  either  sys- 
tem. And  that  is  what  has  occurred  in  both  countries,  and  in  all 
countries  where  there  are  civilization  and  stable  government.  In  a 
country  like  ours,  blessed  with  the  richest  soils,  the  best  of 
climates,  good  government,  mountains  filled  with  coal  and  ores 
of  every  kind,  with  ample  means  of  cheap  and  rapid  transporta- 
tion, with  the  forces  of  production  constantly  increasing  through 
the  invention  of  labor-saving  machinery,  both  wealth  and  wages 
would  increase  under  either  system. 

And  it  is  no  test  of  the  wisdom  of  either  to  show  that  wealth 
and  wages  have  increased  under  it.  It  must  be  shown  that 
wealth  and  wages  would  increase  faster  under  one  system  than 
under  the  other,  and  to  do  that  we  must  see  what  it  is  that  creates 
wealth  and  wages.  All  wealth  is  created  by  labor,  and  the  greatest 
wealth  is  created  when  the  greatest  sum  of  products  is  produced  in  a 
given  time  ;  and  that  is  done  when  the  laborer  works  in  harmony 
with  the  forces  of  nature  and  the  auxiliaries  which  the  inventive 
genius  of  man  has  supplied.  If  a  laborer  who  is  digging  coal  at 
$1  per  ton,  and  who  turns  out  one  ton  per  day,  should  invent  a 
machine  by  which  in  the  same  time  he  turns  out  five  tons  of  coal, 
his  dailv  wages  would  rise,  whether  the  tariff  was  higher  low,  or 
no  tariff  at  all  ;  and  if  throughout  the  whole  industrial  system 
such  an  increase  should  occur  by  labor-saving  methods,  then 
wages  would  rise  throughout  the  whole,  regardless  of  the  tariff. 
But  the  question  is,  "Would  they  not  rise  higher  without  than 
with  the  tariff  ?  If  the  workman,  when  he  turns  out  his  coal,  is 
prohibited  from  selling  any  part  of  it  to  anybody,  his  sur- 
plus will  be  worthless.  After  supplying  his  own  wants, 
the  remainder  will  be  without  value  to  him.     But   if   the  law 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  79 

should  permit  him  to  sell  to  persons  living  within  the  same 
county,  his  market,  though  limited,  would  give  some  value  to  his 
surplus.  Then  if  the  law  should  be  changed  and  he  should  be 
permitted  to  sell  to  all  persons  within  the  same  State,  his  coal 
would  increase  in  value.  If  then  he  was  permitted  to  sell  to  all 
persons  in  the  United  States,  it  would  take  additional  value  just 
as  the  number  of  consumers  increased,  which  would  increase  the 
demand  and  consequently  the  price.  If  he  is  permitted  to 
sell  to  any  one  anywhere  in  the  world,  his  product  would 
find  its  highest  value.  Thus  we  see  that  just  in  proportion 
as  the  numbers  of  those  who  consume  his  coal  increase 
does  its  value  increase.  Wealth,  therefore,  and  wages  are  in- 
creased by  the  removal  of  all  impediments  between  producers  and 
consumers ;  and  the  converse  of  the  proposition  is  equally  true, 
that  wealth  and  wages  are  decreased  by  every  impediment  inter- 
posed between  the  producer  and  consumer. 

A  farmer  in  Brazil  will  make  more  at  labor  expended  in 
raising  cofEee  than  in  manufacturing  cloth,  because  the  soil  and 
climate  are  equivalent  to  so  much  capital  gratuitously  supplied 
to  him.  But  coffee  does  not  supply  all  his  wants.  He  must  have 
clothing,  and  he  can  obtain  it  more  cheaply  by  raising  coffee  than 
by  manufacturing  cloth  ;  but  to  enjoy  that  advantage  he  must 
have  an  open  way  through  which  to  send  his  coffee  and  bring  his 
cloth.  Here  is  where  commerce  becomes  a  necessity.  If  the 
Brazilian  cannot  have  his  surplus  coffee  transported  to  the  manu- 
facturer, he  must  sell  in  the  home  market,  where  every  one  has  a 
surplus  as  well  as  he,  and  where  there  is  no  demand  and  the  value 
of  his  labor  is  greatly  reduced.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the 
manufacturer.  If  he  is  not  permitted  to  send  his  cloth  to  those 
who  want  it,  and  is  compelled  to  sell  it  at  home,  where  the  market 
is  oversupplied,  he  will  find  its  value  greatly  reduced. 

Yet  this  is  the  policy  of  commercial  restriction  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  assails  and  Mr.  Blaine  defends,  and  this  is  the  policy 
that  the  latter  says  increases  national  wealth  and  the  wages  of 
labor.  As  Mr.  Gladstone  says,  commerce  is  based  "  upon  the 
unequal  distribution  among  men  and  regions  of  aptitudes  to 
produce "  the  things  that  satisfy  human  want.  The  desire  for 
gain  is  the  motive  that  actuates  the  distribution.  Men  only  send 
away  their  surplus  to  sell  when  they  can  profit  by  the  sale  in  the 
distant  market.     That  profit  is  obtained  when  the  price  is  higher 


80  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

airay  from  home  than  it  is  at  home,  and  it  is  higher  in  the  dis- 
tant miirkot  than  it  is  in  the  home  market  because  it  could  be 
produced,  if  at  all,  only  at  a  higher  cost.  In  the  market  from 
which  a  thing  is  exported  it  is  produced  at  the  lowest  cost,  and 
it  will  be  produced  at  the  highest  profit  if  the  way  of  transporta- 
tion is  open  to  those  who  want  it  and  can  either  not  produce  it  at 
all  or  at  a  higher  cost.  And  the  profit  of  the  producer  will  be 
much  or  little  in  proportion  to  the  freedom  or  obstruction  in  the 
way  from  the  producer  to  the  consumer.  Every  producer  has  to 
pay  the  cost  incurred  in  reaching  market,  and  then  has  to  sell  at 
the  market  price. 

If  the  market  price  of  wheat  is  one  dollar  per  bushel  at  Liver- 
pool, and  it  costs  the  Russian  farmer  fifty  cents  per  bushel  to 
produce  his  wheat  and  the  American  forty  cents,  the  American 
will  have  ten  cents  per  bushel  advantage  in  the  competition. 
Then  if  it  costs  the  Russian  twenty  cents  per  bushel  to  reach  the 
market  and  the  American  ten,  the  American  has  the  advantage 
of  twenty  cents  per  bushel  in  the  contest,  and  would  make  that 
much  more  profit,  and,  if  he  had  wheat  enough  to  supply  the 
whole  demand,  would  soon  drive  his  rival  out ;  and  if  wheat- 
growing  was  a  considerable  part  of  Russian  industry,  the  loss  of  a 
market  for  it  would  be  a  great  disturbance  in  its  material  progress. 

Hence  it  is  necessary  that  the  way  from  producer  to  consumer 
should  be  free  from  obstructions  and  capable  of  being  passed 
with  the  least  delay  and  the  smallest  expense.  And  "  the  legislator 
ought  never  to  interfere,  or  only  to  interfere  so  far  as  imperative 
fiscal  necessity  may  require  it,  with  this  natural  law  of  distribu- 
tion." When  the  government  interferes  and  requires  the  pro- 
ducer to  pay  a  tax  for  the  privilege  of  selling  in  its  markets,  it 
necessarily  raises  the  price  which  its  citizens  must  pay.  If  the 
object  of  the  tax  is  to  restrict  or  prohibit  the  importation  of  the 
article  in  order  to  give  the  market  to  the  home  producer  which 
he  could  not  hold  without  it,  on  account  of  the  greater  cost  re- 
quired to  produce  the  competing  article,  it  imposes  a  double  tax 
on  the  consumers  of  both  the  domestic  and  foreign  articles.  One 
tax  is  paid  to  the  government  on  the  imported  article ;  another  is 
paid  to  the  owner  of  the  domestic  product. 

But  this  is  not  all  the  injury  done  by  the  tax;  perhaps  it  is 
not  the  greatest.  When  a  purchaser  is  required  by  law  to  pay 
more  for  a  donaestjc  product  than  he  would  otherwise  have  to 


THE  QLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  81 

pay,  one  of  two  things  must  occur  :  either  that  amount  of  wealth 
is  annihilated,  or  it  is  transferred  from  the  pockets  of  the  man 
who  earned  it  to  the  pockets  of  the  man  who  did  not.  If  it  is 
annihilated,  it  ceases  to  be  a  fund  for  the  purchase  of  material, 
for  the  payment  of  wages,  or  for  the  procurement  of  the  things 
that  satisfy  our  wants.  If  it  is  transferred,  it  is  taken  without 
compensation  from  one  citizen  and  given  to  another,  and  the  dis- 
tributed wealth  of  millions  is  concentrated  in  the  pockets  of 
hundreds,  where  it  is  less  able  to  purchase  materials,  pay  wages, 
or  satisfy  wants.  How,  then,  can  import  taxes  increase  wealth 
and  wages  ?  How  can  any  law  foster,  encourage,  or  stimulate  the 
production  of  wealth  or  wages,  when  it  requires  the  laborer  to 
work  two  days  to  procure  that  which  he  could  without  it  obtain 
in  one  day  ?  One  day's  labor  under  such  a  law  is  lost,  and  that 
which  it  would  have  earned  is  lost.  Accumulated  wealth  is  the 
fund  which  must  employ  and  pay  labor,  and  when  it  is  increasing 
demand  for  employment  is  increasing,  and  when  that  is  increas- 
ing the  rate  of  wages  is  increasing  ;  but  if  the  ratio  of  increase  of 
wealth  is  retarded,  the  ratio  of  increase  in  the  demand  for 
employment  is  retarded,  and  the  rate  of  increase  of  wages  is 
retarded  also.  So  that  taxation  decreases,  instead  of  increases, 
wealth  and  wages.  The  law  thab  governs  the  production  of 
wealth  and  wages  is  not  affected  by  either  latitude  or  longitude, 
and  it  is  just  the  same  in  a  large  country  as  in  a  small  one,  and 
applies  with  equal  force  to  a  continent  or  an  island,  a  crowded 
city  or  a  rural  district. 

Mr.  Blaine  thinks  that  it  might  be  wise  statesmanship  to  per- 
mit the  people  of  Great  Britain  to  buy  their  bread  at  the  lowest 
cost,  but  very  unwise  to  permit  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
to  buy  their  sugar  or  their  shoes  on  the  same  principle.  He  says  the 
island  of  Great  Britain  lies  far  to  the  north;  that  its  southern- 
most point  is  thirty  degrees  above  the  tropics,  and  its  northernmost 
point  nine  degrees  below  the  arctic  circle;  that  the  United  States 
is  forty  times  as  large  as  Great  Britain;  that  its  natural  products 
are  more  varied,  more  numerous,  and  of  more  valuable  character 
than  those  of  all  Europe.  Admit  all  that  to  be  true;  it  only 
proves  that  in  the  immense  extent  of  our  country,  with  its  variety 
of  soils,  its  diversity  of  climate,  and  its  greatly  increased  capacity 
to  produce  the  things  that  human  wants  require,  we  are  more  self- 
sustaining  and  less  dependent  upon  others.    But,  after  all,  it  pro- 


82  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

duces  neither  coffee,  tea,  nor  spices.  There  are  some  things  for 
which  we  must  look  to  other  countries  and  climes. 

But,  what  is  more  important  still,  this  immense  country,  prolific 
in  the  production  of  so  many  things,  will  produce  a  surplus  that 
will  increase  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  its  population.  What 
does  Mr.  Blaine  propose  to  do  with  its  accumulating  surplus?  We 
must  find  markets  for  it  somewhere.  Admit  that  England  has  a 
"complex  civilization,"  that  she  lies  far  to  the  north,  and  is  only 
one-fortieth  of  the  size  of  the  Union;  what  has  all  that  to  do  with 
the  export  of  cotton,  wheat,  and  provisions  ?  If  we  can  produce 
these  cheaper  than  she  can,  and  she  can  produce  pig-iron  and 
railroad  bars  cheaper  than  we  can,  why  should  we  not  make  the 
exchange  which  is  beneficial  to  both  ?  In  commercial  intercourse 
the  question  to  be  determined  is  one  of  profit,  and  neither  size, 
civilization,  nor  geographical  position  has  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Great  Britain  carries  on  her  immense  traffic  with  foreign 
countries  because  she  thereby  gives  employment  to  her  people, 
increases  their  wealth,  and  adds  to  their  comfort  and  happiness. 
It  is  a  source  of  great  profit,  and  she  is  extracting  every  dollar 
from  it  she  can.  She  is  sending  the  products  of  her  labor  all 
over  and  around  the  world,  and  distributing  them  among  all  con- 
ditions of  people,  from  the  highest  civilization  in  America  to  the 
darkest  barbarism  in  the  jungles  of  Africa  ;  and  by  her  enormous 
commerce  she  is  filling  the  pockets  of  her  people  with  wealth. 
Why  should  we  not  do  it  ?  Mr.  Blaine  favors  subsidizing  steam- 
ship lines  to  run  between  our  home  and  foreign  ports  ;  but  why 
should  we  hunt  commerce  with  other  people  when  we  refuse  to 
take  it  when  we  find  it  ?  Does  our  continental  position  forbid 
us  to  send  our  products  to  foreign  countries  and  to  receive  theirs 
in  exchange  ?  If  our  civilization  or  geographical  position  demands 
that  our  exchanges  shall  be  confined  among  ourselves,  and  that  we 
shall  neither  import  from  nor  export  to  foreign  countries,  what 
good  is  to  be  accomplished  by  subsidizing  steamship  lines  ?  That 
Mr.  Gladstone  might  favor  liberal  appropriations  to  steamship 
lines  is  quite  natural.  English  statesmen  having  first  removed  all 
legislative  hindrances,  having  negotiated  treaties  with  other  coun- 
tries by  which  tariff  obstructions  have  been  removed  or  greatly 
lessened,  having  sent  out  consuls  and  commercial  agents  to  hunt 
for  and  protect  English  commerce,  it  was  in  line  with  established 
English  policy  to  hunt  new  markets  and   make  a  way  to  reach 


THE  OLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  83 

them  with  English  products.  But  upon  what  ground  can  Ameri- 
can statesmen  favor  granting  subsidies  to  steamships  to  hunt  for 
commerce  which  our  continental  position  forbids  us  to  receive  ? 

It  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Blaine  that  between  1826  and  1846  Great 
Britain  increased  her  material  wealth  beyond  all  precedent  in  the 
commercial  history  of  the  world.  But  does  it  follow  that  her 
wealth  came  from  her  tax  on  bread  that  she  swept  away  in  1846  ? 
The  invention  of  labor-saving  machinery  and  the  utilization  of 
coal  and  steam  in  production  greatly  increased  her  prosperity,  but 
neither  of  them  was  the  product  of  her  tax  on  wheat.  Her  rapid 
development  during  that  period  was  caused  by  multiplying  her 
power  of  production,  not  by  decreasing  it,  as  her  tariff  did.  Her 
growth  in  wealth  for  the  period  between  1860  and  1890,  or  any 
twenty  years  of  that  time,  under  free  trade,  far  outstrips  the 
growth  of  the  former  period.  Since  she  cast  off  the  last  of  her 
shackles  in  1860, — which  we  picked  up  and  riveted  upon  the  arms 
of  our  people, — she  has  left  us  sadly  in  the  lurch.  Having  reduced 
the  cost  of  ship-building  and  of  the  products  of  her  labor,  she 
has  swept  our  vessels  from  the  seas,  and  is  now  carrying  her  own 
products  to  market,  and  a  large  share  of  those  of  other  countries. 
Having  reversed  our  policy  of  commercial  freedom,  and  loaded 
the  materials  of  our  manufacture  with  additional  costs,  we  re- 
tired within  our  own  boundaries,  and  left  her  the  unchallenged 
mistress  of  the  seas.  Then,  having  all  her  raw  material  free  of 
tax,  and  labor  cheaper  than  any  other  country  on  earth  except 
ours  (and  we  were  out  of  the  contest),  she  took  the  world's  mar- 
kets, and  holds  them  to-day  against  all  comers,  and  will  continue 
to  do  so  until  we  unload  our  burden  of  taxation  on  materials,  when 
we  can  and  will  produce  cheaper  than  she  can,  and  she  must  take 
a  secondary  place  in  the  contest. 

There  can  be  no  surer  test  of  the  prosperity  of  a  country  than 
the  increase  of  its  foreign  trade,  and  no  surer  test  of  the  retarda- 
tion of  that  prosperity  than  the  decrease  of  that  trade.  By  going 
back  to  1816,  when  the  obstructive  system  may  be  said  to  have 
begun  its  career,  we  see  that  our  total  foreign  trade  amounted  to 
1229,000,000.  (See  Stat.  Abs.  U.  S.  for  1888.)  From  1800  to 
1816  our  foreign  trade  increased  41  per  cent.  During  the  next 
sixteen  years,  under  the  encouraging  and  fostering  care  of  high 
tariffs,  it  decreased  23  per  cent.  ;  and  from  1820  to  1830  it  was 
not  so  great  as  it  was  in  the  first  ten  years  of  the  century,  during 


84  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

which  ''  the  highway  of  nations  was  almost  without  a  flag  float- 
ing on  its  surface  except  the  flag  of  commercial  marauders." 
Yet  (^uring  that  period,  when  all  the  earth  seemed  to  be  in  arms 
on  land  and  sea,  our  foreign  commerce  was  greater  than  under 
the  restricting  tariffs  in  existe'' je  from  1816  to  1832.  Our 
foreign  trade  began  to  decline  after  1816,  and  had  fallen  to 
1109,000,000  in  1821.  From  that  time  it  began  slowly  to 
recover.  It  increased  30  per  cent,  from  1821  to  1824.  The 
tariff  of  1824  checked  it  again,  and  it  had  increased  at  less  than 
4  per  cent,  in  1828 ;  and  from  1828  to  1832  it  increased  21  per 
cent.  After  the  enactment  of  the  compromise  tariff  of  1833, 
which  required  a  reduction  of  the  existing  tariff  10  per  cent, 
every  two  years  (not  every  year,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Blaine), 
our  foreign  trade  began  to  increase  more  rapidly,  and  by  1836 
it  amounted  to  $292,000,000,  which  was  an  increase  in  four 
years  of  65  per  cent.  In  1841  it  was  $227,000,000,  which  it  had 
reached  under  the  constantly-falling  tariff  of  1833.  In  1842 
the  restrictive  system  was  again  restored  and  our  trade  again 
fell  off,  but  slowly  recovered  till  1846,  when  it  was  $227,000,000 
— again  just  what  it  had  been  in  1841,  and  $2,000,000  less  than 
it  had  been  in  1816.  In  1846  a  revenue  tariff  with  low  duties 
took  the  place  of  the  high  tariff  of  1842.  The  tariff  of  1846  was 
further  reduced  in  1857,  and  from  1846  to  1860,  under  non-pro- 
tective tariffs,  our  foreign  trade  increased  over  200  per  cent. 
After  1860  we  returned  again  to  restrictive  tariffs  with  higher 
duties  than  ever,  and  for  the  next  fourteen  years  (from  1860  to 
1874)  our  foreign  trade  increased  only  65  per  cent.,  instead  of 
200  ;  and  for  the  fourteen  years  of  high  tariffs  (from  1874  to 
1888)  it  increased  23  per  cent,  instead  of  200  per  cent. 

It  will  be  seen  that  whenever  our  foreign  trade  increases  our 
agricultural  products  increase  in  price;  that  distributes  wealth 
through  the  great  hive  of  agricultural  labor;  that  again  demands 
the  products  of  manufacture,  and  that  gives  better  employment 
and  higher  wages  to  labor,  and  that  brings  prosperity  to  the 
whole  land.  It  was  so  under  the  falling  tariff  of  1833,  and  it 
was  so  under  the  low-revenue  tariffs  from  1846  to  1860.  Mr. 
Blaine  charges  that  the  depression  and  panic  of  1837  were  the 
product  of  the  falling  tariff  of  1833.  It  is  a  strange  argument 
that  reducing  taxation  produces  depression,  distress,  and  bank- 
ruptcy,  and   that  imposing  high    taxes    produces   wealth  and 


THE  OLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  85 

prosperity,  and  the  higher  the  tax  the  greater  the  prosperity. 
But  such  is  the  logic  of  the  advocate  of  commercial  restriction. 
John  Quincy  Adams  said  in  1832  ''that  the  remission  of  taxes 
must,  in  its  nature,  be  a  measure  always  acceptable  to  the 
people."  He  said  of  the  committee  for  which  he  spoke  :  ''They 
feel  the  delight  with  which  any  one  permitted  to  enjoy  the  luxury 
of  assenting  to  such  a  remission  may  indulge  the  benevolence  of 
his  disposition."  Mr.  Adams,  if  alive  to-day,  would  be  branded 
by  Pennsylvania  iron-masters  as  an  agent  of  the  Cobdcu  Club. 

Henry  C.  Carey,  the  advocate  of  high  taxes  as  a  potent  instru- 
ment in  the  increase  of  wealth,  started  that  argument  about  the 
panic  of  1837  and  that  of  1857.  It  has  often  been  exploded,  but 
it  comes  up  smiling  every  time  any  one  proposes  "  to  enjoy  the 
luxury  "  of  reducing  taxes.  In  1842  the  same  charge  was  made 
in  the  Senate,  and  Mr.  Clay,  who  was  the  author  of  the  Com- 
promise Bill,  said  that  "  it  was  not  correct  that  the  Compromise 
Act  had  occasioned  the  embarrassments  of  the  country,"  and  that 
"  it  was  a  great  mistake  to  say  that  any  portion  of  the  embarrass- 
ments of  the  country  had  resulted  from  it."  This  "great  mis- 
take "  Mr.  Blaine  has  made.  Mr.  Clay  said  it  was  speculation  in 
lands  and  the  expansion  of  the  currency  that  produced  that  panic, 
and  that  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
The  circulation  of  the  country  had  increased  from  $121,000,000 
in  1833  to  $222,000,000  in  1837.  The  increased  circulation,  two- 
thirds  of  which  was  paper,  caused  an  upward  tendency  in  prices. 
People  who  had  money  invested  it  in  lands  that  were  constantly 
rising  in  value,  and  not  only  invested  all  they  had,  but  borrowed 
all  they  could  and  invested  both  money  and  credit.  The  paper 
balloon  collapsed,  and  speculation  and  credits  fell  to  the  ground. 
Even  if  reducing  taxes  could  bring  on  a  panic,  there  had  not  been 
enough  reduction  at  that  time  to  affect  anything.  Eighty  per 
cent,  of  the  rates  of  the  tariff  of  1832  were  still  in  force.  Ten 
per  cent,  was  reduced  January  1,  1834,  and  10  per  cent.  January 
1,  1836.  The  average  rate  of  duty  on  dutiable  goods  from  1833  to 
1837  was  3G  per  cent.,  and  for  the  five  years  from  1842  to  1846 
was  32  per  cent.  If  tariff  rates  averaging  32  per  cent,  gave  pros- 
perity to  the  country,  as  Mr.  Blaine  says  they  did,  how  could  the 
higher  rate  of  36  per  cent,  bring  panic  and  bankruptcy  ? 

In  1857,  Congress,  finding  a  surplus  in  the  treasury  and  the 
revenues  increasing  beyond  all  re(juireraent  for  government  ex- 


86  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

peTiditure,  again  reduced  the  taxes,  aud  Mr.  Blaine  says  that 
reduction  of  taxation  brought  on  the  panic  of  that  year.  The 
panic  of  1857  was  produced  by  the  same  cause  that  produced  the 
one  of  1837.  From  1850  prices  continued  to  rise  till  1857,  when 
gold  prices  touched  the  highest  point  ever  reached  within  the 
memory  of  men  now  living.  Each  year  brought  higher  prices 
for  all  property.  People  plunged  into  speculation  again,  buying 
property,  paying  all  the  money  they  had  and  going  in  debt  for 
more.  Any  one  who  will  examine  the  list  of  annual  prices  in  the 
report  of  the  director  of  the  mint  for  1881  will  see  that  that 
year  shows  the  highest  gold  prices  we  have  ever  had  before  or 
since.  And  any  person  who  will,  without  preconceived  preju- 
dice, read  the  history  of  that  period  will  be  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  increase  of  circulation,  and  not  decrease  of 
taxation,  that  brought  on  t^le  fever  for  speculation  which  ended 
in  the  bankruptcy  of  the  speculators.  The  legitimate  business  of 
the  country  was  scarcely  touched.  The  country  was  full  of 
metallic  money.  Agriculture,  manufacture,  and  commerce  had 
distributed  it,  and  confidence  was  soon  restored  and  business 
resumed  its  usual  channels. 

The  revenue  tariff  of  1846  was  passed  July  30,  to  go  into 
effect  December  1.  Secretary  Walker  had  predicted  in  his  report 
that  the  passage  of  a  revenue  measure  would  increase  imports  and 
exports,  and  would  enhance  the  price  of  our  agricultural  products 
that  had  to  find  a  foreign  market  for  their  surplus.  The  results 
proved  how  well  he  had  reckoned.  Before  the  1st  of  December 
came,  the  value  of  leading  agricultural  products  rose  in  the  New 
York  markets  23  per  cent.;  cotton  rose  18^^  per  cent.,  wheat 
17y'^  per  cent.,  rye  18  per  cent.,  corn  24^  per  cent.,  oats  40^,,^  per 
cent.,  and  barley  24y\  per  cent.  Seven  of  the  principal  crops,  as 
reported  by  the  Secretary,  had  increased  in  value  $115,000,000, 
and  he  estimated  that  the  increased  value  of  the  whole  crop 
amounted  to  1350,000,000.  If  our  present  obstructive  tariff 
were  reduced  to  the  average  rate  of  that  of  1846,  it  would  add 
again  at  least  23  per  cent,  to  the  value  of  our  crops,  which  is 
claimed  by  the  statistician  of  the  Agricultural  Department  to  be 
four  thousand  millions  of  dollars  ;  and  an  increase  of  23  per  cent, 
would  add  to  it  more  than  $900,000,000. 

But  it  is  constantly  charged  that,  if  we  lower  our  taxes,  we  will 
let  in  foreign  goods  and  ruin  our  manufacturers.     If  this  is  true, 


TSE  CHAbSfONEBLAtiiE  COMTEOVEttSY,  ^f 

they  would  all  have  been  ruined  between  1846  and  1860,  for  our 
imports  and  exports  were  constantly  increasing  from  year  to  year. 
But  domestic  production  kept  pace  with  the  times,  and  eur  man- 
ufactures grew  with  the  growth  of  our  agriculture  and  commerce. 
During  the  decade  from  1850  to  1.860  our  agricultural  product 
increased  95  per  cent,  and  our  manufacturing  product  85  per 
cent.  Neither  agriculture,  commerce,  nor  manufactures  have 
ever  increased  at  an  equal  ratio  during  any  decade  through  which 
we  have  passed  either  before  or  since.  From  1860  to  1870  our 
manufacturing  product  only  increased  80  per  cent.,  and  from 
1870  to  1880  only  59  per  cent.  Under  the  revenue  tariffs  from 
1850  to  1860  the  production  of  cotton  goods  increased  76  per 
cent.,  woollen  goods  42  per  cent.,  carpetings  45  per  cent.,  men's 
clothing  45  per  cent.,  boots  and  shoes  70  per  cent.,  paper  108  per 
cent.,  printing  168  per  cent.,  musical  instruments  153  per  cent., 
coal-mining  182  per  cent.,  iron-mining  79  per  cent.,  steel  900  per 
cent.,  farming  implements  156  per  cent.,  bar,  sheet,  and  railroad 
iron  100  per  cent.,  and  the  cash  value  of  farms  103  per  cent. 

Certainly  these  industries  were  not  injured  by  enlarging  the 
market.  Manufacturers  of  wool  were  weighted  down  by  the  tax 
of  30  per  cent,  on  wool  and  the  same  on  the  finished  product, 
until  the  act  of  1857  put  all  wool  costing  less  than  twenty  cents 
per' pound  on  the  free  list.  Then  the  woollen  manufactures 
sprang  forward  and  made  their  chief  increase  in  three  years  of 
the  ten.  Does  that  look  as  though  the  English  had  taken  our 
home  market  ?  We  were  not  only  holding  our  own  market,  but 
we  were  beginning  to  take  the  markets  of  the  world.  Our 
exports  of  all  merchandise  increased  120  per  cent. ,  cotton  manu- 
factures 130  per  cent.,  iron  and  steel  190  per  cent.,  hats  200  per 
cent.,  boots  and  shoes  600  per  cent.,  wearing  apparel  150  per 
cent.,  earthen  and  stone  ware  300  per  cent.,  glass  100  per  cent., 
and  tin  200  per  cent.  Does  not  this  look  as  though  we  were 
taking  the  English  markets,  instead  of  their  taking  ours,  as  Mr. 
Blaine  says  they  were  doing  ?  We  were  not  only  taking  her  mar- 
kets, but  the  markets  of  all  other  rivals,  because  we  were  making 
better  and  cheaper  goods.  Does  any  advocate  of  commercial 
restriction  assert  that  during  any  ten  years  of  our  history,  either 
before  or  since  that  period,  we  ever  increased  our  exports  either  of 
agricultural  or  manufacturing  products  at  an  equal  ratio  ?  The 
same  prosperous  growth  is  shown  in  the  enormous  increase  of  the 


68  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

national  wealth,  which  from  1850  to  1860  was  126  per  cent.  It 
has  never  been  approximated  before  or  since. 

The  marvellous  growth  of  the  country  in  all  departments  of 
national  industry  under  the  free-trade  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  is 
not  denied  by  Mr.  Blaine,  but  he  says  it  was  due  to  the  discovery 
of  gold  in  California,  to  the  Crimean  War,  the  Mexican  War,  the 
Irish  famine,  and  other  adventitious  circumstances.  He  forgets 
that  the  prosperity  had  come  and  was  firmly  established  before 
an  ounce  of  gold  had  found  its  way  from  the  mines  of  California 
to  the  channels  of  circulation.  The  Crimean  War,  occurring  long 
after  the  tariff  of  1846  had  torn  down  the  barriers  and  let  in  the 
prosperity,  had  no  effect  upon  the  country  prior  to  1853,  when 
it  began.  It  probably  increased  the  price  of  breadstuffs  in  1854 
and  1855,  but  it  had  no  effect  upon  American  manufactures.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  how  it  stimulated  the  production  of  cotton 
goods,  hats,  boots,  shoes,  glass  goods,  paper,  leather,  iron,  or 
steel.  It  is  difficult  to  comprehend  how  a  war  in  Europe  could 
add  to  the  national  wealth,  except  in  stimulating  the  export 
of  food  and  army  stores.  England  and  France  certainly  supplied 
their  own  arms  and  ordnance  and  quartermaster  stores.  Prices 
touched  their  highest  point  in  1857,  after  the  war  had  closed. 
But  the  assertion  that  our  own  war  with  Mexico,  which  began 
and  terminated  before  1850,  was  the  cause  of  the  increased  na- 
tional wealth  from  1850  to  1860,  and  the  enormous  increase  in 
importation,  exportation,  and  consumption,  is  beyond  the  bounds 
of  conception. 

The  total  production  of  gold  in  the  United  States  from  1850 
to  1860  was  $550,000,000,  while  from  1860  to  1870  it  was  1576,- 
000,000,  and  from  1870  to  1880  it  was  $700,000,000.  AVhy  did 
not  the  greater  production  of  the  two  decades  after  1860  give 
greater  prosperity,  if  that  gave  the  prosperity  in  the  former 
decade?  Instead  of  that,  the  growth  of  neither  national  wealth, 
agriculture,  manufactures,  nor  commerce  approximated  it.  Leav- 
ing out  the  decade  of  the  war,  and  comparing  that  from  1870  to 
1880,  when  there  was  the  largest  gold  production,  instead  of  enor- 
mous increase  of  prosperity,  there  never  has  been  a  period  in 
the  history  of  the  country  so  black  with  disaster.  For  more  than 
half  the  decade  all  the  industries  of  the  country  were  stretched 
upon  their  backs.  The  roads  and  highways  were  filled  with  tramps 
and  beggars.     Immigration  was  falling  off  year  by  year,  and  emi- 


THE  GLaDSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  89 

gration  increasing  year  by  year.  State  after  State  was  tottering 
on  its  foundation  and  calling  on  the  general  government  for  aid 
to  keep  it  on  its  feet.  The  central  city  of  the  iron  and  steel  in- 
dustry was  set  on  fire  by  starving  workingmen  who  were  out  of 
employment,  and  there  was  not  power  enough  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  either  to  suppress  the  disorder  or  extinguish  the 
flames.  During  a  large  part  of  that  decade  it  was  estimated  that 
three  millions  of  men  were  out  of  work.  The  gold  product  that 
Mr,  Blaine  thinks  contributed  so  largely  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
free-trade  decade  ought  to  have  produced  the  same  effect,  and  in 
a  greater  degree,  from  1870  to  1880.  The  fact  is  that  California 
gold  had  little  to  do  with  the  material  condition  of  the  country  at 
either  period.  The  great  body  of  it  left  the  country  as  fast  as  it  was 
taken  from  the  mines.  Our  circulation  in  1850  was  $265,000,- 
000,  and  in  1860  it  was  $487,000,000,  but  we  had  exported  $400,- 
000,000.  The  increase  in  our  circulation  had  come  from  in- 
creased prices  for  our  exports  and  decreased  prices  for  our  im- 
ports. The  Irish  famine  cost  us  as  much  in  the  decline  in  cotton 
as  it  made  up  in  the  advance  in  provisions,  but,  like  the  Mexican 
War,  it  was  over  before  the  free-trade  decade  began.  The  Crimean 
"War  came  and  went,  and  still  the  prosperity  continued  and  at  an 
increasing  rate.  The  question  still  remains.  What  produced  it  if 
unshackled  commerce  did  not? 

Mr.  Blaine  says  that  the  periods  of  depression  in  our  home 
manufactures  were  those  in  which  England  most  prospered  in 
her  commercial  relations  with  us.  In  this  statement  he  is  not 
accurate.  When  England  is  most  prosperous,  she  has  the  most 
money  to  buy  what  we  have  to  sell  and  what  her  wants  require  her 
to  buy,  and  these  are  mainly  agricultural  products.  When  she  is 
most  prosperous,  she  makes  an  active  demand  on  our  farmers  for 
cotton,  breadstuffs,  and  provisions.  This  active  demand  pi  ways 
raises  the  prices  of  all  farm  products  all  over  the  country,  and 
distributes  wealth  among  the  masses  of  the  people.  Between 
1879  and  1881  England's  prosperity  enabled  her  to  demand  of 
our  farmers,  and  pay  for,  a  large  amount  of  their  products.  The 
value  of  the  articles  we  sent  her  in  1881  amounted  to  $477,000,- 
000,  and  that  was  more  than  half  of  our  total  exports  to  all 
countries.  By  her  prosperity  chiefly  we  increased  our  exports  of 
agricultural  products  from  $546,000,000  in  1879  to  $730,000,000 
in   1^1.      This  enormous   increase   was   the   result  mostly  of 


90  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

England's  ability  to  buy  from  us  and  pay  us  for  our  surplus. 
The  increased  demand  very  greatly  increased  the  prices  of  these 
products,  and  distributed  among  our  farmers  a  large  amount  of 
money.  There  was  an  average  increase  in  the  price  of  corn, 
wheat,  rye,  oats,  barley,  buckwheat,  potatoes,  hay,  and  cotton  of 
42  per  cent,  over  the  prices  of  1879. 

Now,  if  England's  prosperity  enabled  her  to  buy  and  consume 
1200,000,000  more  of  our  agricultural  products  this  year  than  she 
did  last  year,  the  increased  demand  would  again  increase  the  prices 
of  these  products,  and  if  it  amounted  to  42  per  cent.,  as  it  did 
before,  it  would  add  $1,500,000,000  to  the  value  of  our  crop,  which, 
we  have  seen,  is  estimated  at  four  billions.  This  large  sum  dis- 
tributed among  our  farmers  would  soon  be  distributed  among  all 
classes.  Nine  dollars  out  of  every  ten  would  be  spent  for  articles 
to  be  consumed  by  the  purchaser.  How  would  the  domestic 
manufacturer  share  in  the  result  of  this  prosperity  of  England  ? 
"We  produce  annually  about  17,000,000,000  of  manufactured  prod- 
ucts. We  exported  last  year  $138,000,000,  and  we  imported, 
including  raw  sugar,  manufactures  amounting  to  $422,000,000  ; 
so  that  our  total  home  consumption  reaches  about  $7,300,000,000, 
of  which  over  94  per  cent,  is  home  production,  and  less  than  6 
per  cent,  foreign  production. 

Now,  when  this  large  increased  wealth — the  result  mainly  of 
England's  prosperity  and  what  is  left  of  our  trade  with  her — is  to 
be  expended  in  the  purchase  of  manufactures,  who  is  to  reap  the 
incalcuable  benefits  from  its  expenditure  ?  Ninety-four  per  cent, 
will  go  into  the  pockets  of  the  home  producers  and  home  laborers, 
and  6  per  cent,  into  those  of  the  foreigner.  This  will  create  an 
active  demand  for  home  products,  and  an  active  demand  for  the 
raw  materials  and  the  labor  to  make  them,  and  this  again  will 
increase  the  price  of  the  materials  and  the  wages  of  labor.  So 
that,  after  all,  not  only  is  the  prosperity  of  England  communi- 
cated to  our  farmers,  but  through  them  it  goes  to  the  manu- 
facturers, to  the  laborers,  and  the  producers  of  raw  materials, 
and  it  does  not  stop  yet.  The  consumer  and  the  producer  are  not 
side  by  side,  and  never  will  be.  The  merchant  and  the  middle- 
man have  to  supply  the  missing  link,  and  when  there  is  an  in- 
creased product  to  be  distributed  there  is  an  active  demand  made 
on  them  for  their  services,  and  they  obtain  constant  employment 
and  higher  wages. 


THE?  GLADSTONE-BLAlNE  CONTROVERSY.  91 

Mr.  Blaine's  mistake  is  the  mistake  of  the  system  which  he 
is  attempting  with  his  splendid  ability  to  support,  and  nowhere 
in  this  or  any  other  country  could  it  have  chosen  an  abler  cham- 
pion. It  is  being  assailed  at  every  point,  and  it  will  require  all 
of  his  tact  and  talent  to  cover  its  retreat  and  prevent  it  from 
degenerating  into  a  rout  as  it  leaves  the  field. 

The  system  falsely  called  protection  maintains  that  commerce 
is  a  gambling  device  in  which  one  party  wins  and  the  other  loses. 
Therefore  if  England  makes  anything  in  a  trade  with  us  she  is 
benefited  and  we  are  injured.  But  the  truth  is  both  parties  are 
benefited.  We  can  produce  much  that  she  wants  better  and 
cheaper  than  she  can,  and  she  can  produce  much  that  we  want 
cheaper  and  better  than  we  can;  and  the  exchange  is  beneficial  to 
both.  Our  vast  system  of  manufactures  stands  upon  the  same 
solid  and  immovable  foundation  as  our  agriculture.  There  are 
but  few  things  in  either  that  we  cannot  produce  cheaper  than 
they  can  be  produced  elsewhere,  and  that  article  whose  cost  of 
production  is  the  lowest  holds  the  market  against  all  competitors. 
Throughout  our  whole  history  we  have  been  exporting  a  large 
part  of  our  annual  crops  to  others  who  could  either  not  produce 
them  at  all  or  not  as  cheaply  as  they  could  obtain  them  by 
producing  something  else  and  exchanging  their  surplus  for  ours. 
No  tariff  levied  upon  agricultural  products  can  help  them.  It 
can  only  hurt  them,  as  it  does  by  prohibiting  the  import  of  the 
things  that  would  come  to  be  exchanged  for  them.  We  have  the 
soil  and  climate  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of  grain  and  cotton 
and  to  raising  the  stock  which  supplies  the  food  for  mankind. 
It  yields  a  larger  return  for  the  labor  expended  than  any  other 
country.  We  have  more  intelligent,  enterprising,  and  skilful 
farmers  than  are  to  be  found  in  any  other  country.  We  use 
labor-saving  machinery,  and  make  our  labor  more  productive  than 
the  labor  of  any  other  people.  These  advantages  enable  us  to 
produce  a  greater  quantity  in  a  given  time,  and  at  a  lower  cost, 
and  hence  we  can  hold  our  own  market  against  the  world. 

But  it  is  not  in  the  home  market  that  our  agricultural  interest 
is  imperilled.  It  is  in  the  foreign  market,  and  the  danger  there 
does  not  come  from  rival  products,  for  we  can  raise  our  prod- 
ucts and  pay  the  costs  of  transportation  to  market  and  then 
undersell  with  profit  all  rivals.  The  danger  is  in  foreign  and  do- 
mestic tariffs  that  prohibit  our  entrance  into  the  market.     Some 


92  botb  sides  of  the  tariff  question. 

years  ago  we  exported  breadstuffs  and  provisions  largely  to 
European  markets  on  the  continent.  That  trade  is  now  almost 
destroyed  by  hostile  tariffs  in  retaliation  for  our  prohibitions 
against  their  manufactures.  Our  productive  capacity  is  greater 
than  our  capacity  to  consume,  and  the  excess  is  growing  greater 
year  by  year,  and  if  we  are  to  be  shut  out  from  our  consumers,  the 
surplus  must  be  thrown  upon  the  home  market,  already  largely 
oversupplied,  with  the  prices  constantly  low  and  constantly  tend- 
ing to  a  lower  level.  The  result  is  that  agricultural  production 
is  discouraged,  the  output  is  decreased,  and  the  farmers  are  kept 
straitened  and  with  no  prospects  of  bettering  their  condition. 
"We  have  to-day  twelve  millions  more  people  than  we  had  in  1881, 
and  yet  our  exports  of  agriculture  are  230  millions  less  than  they 
were  that  year,  when  they  should  be  350  millions  more,  and 
would  be  if  the  markets  were  not  shut  against  us.  If  we  would 
open  our  markets  to  the  products  of  other  countries,  ours  would 
be  demanded  and  taken  in  exchange  for  theirs.  But  as  long 
as  we  refuse  to  take  their  surplus  they  cannot  take  ours,  be- 
cause they  have  nothing  else  with  which  to  pay.  The  solution  of 
the  difficulty  will  be  found  in  the  removal  of  the  barriers  which 
we  have  interposed  against  the  admission  of  their  products,  and 
that  will  permit  them  to  come  and  exchange  with  us,  to  the 
mutual  advantage  of  both. 

Our  manufacturers,  like  our  farmers,  are  standing  sadly  in 
need  of  more  extended  markets.  With  the  capital,  machinery, 
and  manual  labor  now  organized  and  embarked  in  manufactur- 
ing, we  can  turn  out  a  third  more  product  than  our  people  can 
consume,  and  we  must  either  have  more  markets  and  more  con- 
sumers, or  less  product,  less  employment,  less  wages,  and  less 
profits  to  capital. 

Situated  as  we  are  to-day,  we  are  shut  out  from  the  world's 
markets  because  the  cost  of  our  production  is  greater  than  that  of 
our  rivals.  We  only  export  a  trifle  of  the  vast  product  we  manu- 
facture— about  2  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  With  our  productive 
machinery,  with  the  inventive  genius  of  our  people  constantly  in 
advance  of  the  world,  with  our  cheap  and  skilled  labor,  we  can 
produce,  cheaper  and  better,  more  than  half  the  products  which 
the  manufacturing  people  of  Europe  are  distributing  through  the 
world,  if  we  could  obtain  the  materials  at  the  same  cost.  Europe 
is  exporting  a  thousand  millions  of  textiles  every  year,  most  of 


THE  CHADBTO^E-hLAlNE  CONTROVERSY.  93 

which  we  can  make  more  cheaply  than  she  can,  and  give  better 
employment  and  better  wages  to  our  people ;  but  the  flock- 
master  says  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  give  him  a  bounty 
on  his  wool,  the  hemp-grower  on  his  hemp,  the  coal-owner  on  his 
coal,  and  the  manufacturer  on  his  machinery;  and  by  the  time 
all  the  bounties  are  paid  the  cost  of  the  product  is  so  high  that  it 
cannot  be  sold  anywhere  but  at  home,  and  there  the  home  con- 
sumer is  bound  to  buy,  and  pay  all  these  costs,  or  go  without.  If 
Congress  would  remove  the  duty  from  all  materials  that  enter  into 
manufacture,  then  we  could  buy  them  on  equal  terms  with  the 
foreigner,  and,  having  advantage  of  him  in  the  cheapness  of  our 
labor,  we  could  soon  start  all  our  machinery  and  operate  it  in 
full  time,  and  give  full  employment  and  better  wages  to  our 
workmen.  There  is  no  good  reason  why  we  should  not  make  and 
export  the  largest  part  of  the  metal  goods  thtt  are  now  made  in  and 
exported  from  European  shops.  With  cost  )f  production  brought 
to  the  lowest  point  by  removal  of  all  taxes  o\  materials  going  into 
manufacture,  we  should  soon  recover  our  lost  position  as  carrier  of 
the  world's  commerce.  We  should  soon  see  our  commercial 
marine  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and,  instead  of  paying  150 
millions  to  foreigners  to  carry  our  commerce  we  should  pay  it 
to  our  own  people,  and  give  employment  to  thousands  of  Ameri- 
cans in  our  carrying  trade.  But  before  we  begin  the  contest  with 
other  nations  we  must  get  rid  of  the  Pennsylvania  idea  that  it  is 
better  to  hang  a  man  than  make  a  seaman  of  him. 

Mr.  Blaine  says  that  in  1860  the  population  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  was  about  the  same,  and  that  our  wealth 
was  then  fourteen  thousand  millions  and  that  of  Great  Britain  was 
twenty-nine  thousand  millions,  and  that  at  the  end  of  twenty 
years  the  United  States  had  added  nearly  thirty  thousand  millions 
to  her  wealth  and  Great  Britain  nearly  fifteen  thousand  millions 
to  hers.  With  a  small  error  in  the  statement  of  the  wealth  of  the 
United  States  in  1860  he  is  correct.  Our  national  wealth  in  1860 
was  over  sixteen  thousand  millions,  instead  of  under  fourteen, 
and  the  gain  of  the  United  States  in  twenty  years  was  twenty- 
seven  thousand  millions,  instead  of  thirty.  But  does  that  prove 
that  because  the  United  States  has  commercial  restriction,  and 
Great  Britain  has  not,  the  former  has  surpassed  her  rival  in  the 
race  for  wealth  ?  Let  us  apply  the  same  test  to  France.  She  has 
commercial  restriction,  just  as  we  have,  and  if  that  is  the  cause  of 


94  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QVESTTON. 

our  superior  growth  over  England,  it  ought  to  produce  the  same 
(iffect  in  France.  France  is  an  older  country  than  Great  Britain, 
is  more  populous,  and  has  been  for  years.  Great  Britain  got  her 
artisiins  from  France  and  the  Low  Countries  during  the  religious 
persecutions  of  the  Protestants  on  the  continent,  and  that  was 
the  germ  from  which  her  manufactures  sprang.  And  yet  in  1882, 
while  France  had  thirty-seven  million  people  and  Great  Britain 
thirty-five  million,  the  wealth  of  Great  Britain  was  $44,800,000,- 
000  and  that  of  France  was  $40,300,000,000.  Germany,  another 
protection  country,  had  forty-five  million  people  and  $31,616,- 
000,000  of  wealth.  Both  countries  older  than  England  and  yet 
both  behind  her.  There  is  no  connection  whatever  between  any 
of  these  facts  and  the  issue  joined.  They  are  like  the  differ- 
ence in  the  rate  of  wa.p-es  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain.  It  has  bepr  claimed  by  Protectionists  that  our  rate  of 
wages  is  higher  thar  Great  Britain's  because  we  have  high  tariffs 
and  she  has  not.  '  )n  the  other  hand,  Germany  and  France  have 
lower  rates  of  wages  than  Great  Britain  ;  and  they  have  high 
tariffs,  and  she  has  not.  Protection  seems  to  be  a  principle  that 
can  work  both  ways. 

Instead  of  claiming  our  marvellous  growth  as  the  logical 
result  of  commercial  restriction  because  it  has  occurred  subse- 
quent to  the  adoption  of  that  policy,  it  would  be  more  satis- 
factory to  show  how  wealth  is  made  and  trace  it  back  to  that 
source,  if  it  be  the  rightful  one.  How  is  the  dollar,  the  unit  of 
the  vast  pile,  made  ?  The  answer  must  be.  By  labor.  That  is  the 
producing  cause  of  all  wealth.  And  the  largest  wealth  will  be 
made  where  labor  produces  the  largest  amount  of  products  in  a 
given  time.  These  products  will  take  their  largest  value  where 
there  is  the  largest  demand  for  their  consumption,  and  that  is  in 
the  markets  where  the  same  articles  cannot  be  produced,  or 
cannot  be  produced  as  cheaply,  or  not  in  sufficient  quantities  to 
supply  the  demand.  Hence  the  surplus  must  find  its  markets 
away  from  home,  where  it  is  wanted,  and  not  at  home,  where  it 
is  not  wanted.  At  home  it  has  its  lowest  value,  because  it  is  not 
wanted  ;  away  from  home  it  finds  its  highest  value,  because  it  is 
wanted.  But  the  person  who  wants  must  have  the  capacity  to 
buy  ;  this  he  can  only  have  by  having  the  right  to  sell  and  have 
his  surplus  conveyed  to  his  customer.  This  is  commerce.  Having 
the  right  to  enter  the  market  where  his  product  is  wanted,  and  to 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  95 

sell  it  at  the  highest  price  he  can  obtain,  he  is  that  much  more  able 
to  buy  and  pay  for  the  surplus  of  others ;  and  all  parties  having 
access  to  markets  where  these  products  are  wanted  obtain  the  high- 
est prices  and  accumulate  the  most  wealth.  Just  in  the  propor- 
tion that  the  market  is  closed  and  the  product  driven  back  upon 
the  producer,  just  so  is  the  price  decreased,  and  the  ratio  of 
accumulation  of  wealth  retarded. 

This  is  what  protection  does.  "When  protection  puts  taxes 
upon  the  goods  of  the  foreigner  that  prohibit  them  from  coming 
here,  he  is  rendered  less  able  to  take  in  exchange  the  surplus 
which  we  are  ready  and  anxious  to  give.  He  takes  less  of  our 
wheat,  flour,  cotton,  and  provisions;  a  larger  surplus  is  left  in  the 
home  market;  the  demand  is  decreased;  the  price  falls,  and  the 
growth  of  wealth  is  retarded.  Protection,  therefore,  has  lessened 
the  height  of  the  column,  high  as  it  is.  Had  it  not  been  for 
restrictions  and  prohibitions  on  our  trade,  it  would  have  been 
greater.  Our  enormous  growth  is  due  to  our  rich  soil,  to  our 
splendid  climate,  and  to  the  productive  efficiency  of  our  farmers; 
and  in  manufactures  to  the  great  multiplication  of  machinery  and 
its  productive  power,  and  to  the  genius  and  skill  of  our  workmep, 
as  well  as  to  the  immense  mineral  wealth  which  we  have,  and 
which  we  are  taking  out  of  the  earth  and  consuming  at  home  and 
shipping  to  foreign  countries.  The  superiority  of  our  labor  over 
that  of  Great  Britain  may  be  shown  by  one  item.  Mr.  Hill,  for- 
merly statistician  of  the  State  Department,  in  an  argument  before 
the  Tariff  Commission  in  1882,  said  that  in  that  year  we,  with 
5,250,000  hands,  produced  double  what  Great  Britain  did  with 
5,140,000  hands.  Gateley's  "  World's  Progress"  puts  our  prod- 
uct in  1882  at  six  thousand  millions  and  Great  Britain's  at  four 
thousand  millions.  Even  that  would  show  that  the  same  number 
of  laborers  here  produce  50  per  cent,  more  than  they  do  in  Great 
Britain.  This  accounts  for  our  superior  wealth.  No  people  ever 
have  increased  or  ever  will  increase  in  wealth  by  the  help  of  taxa- 
tion. No  people  can  increase  in  wealth  by  being  kept  out  of 
market  with  their  products.  Taking  one  dollar  out  of  a  man's 
pocket  does  not  put  two  in.  How  can  taking  a  man's  money  and 
giving  it  to  another  increase  his  wealth  ? 

Without  showing  the  least  connection  between  his  facts  and 
his  theory,  Mr.  Blaine  continues  to  make  statements  about  the 
growth  of  the  United  States  a,nd  compare  it  with  the  growth  o| 


96  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

England.  It  is  somewhat  strange  that  it  has  not  occurred  to  him 
to  compare  his  own  country  with  any  of  those  on  the  Continent 
whose  foreign  trade  is  under  the  same  restrictions.  He  will  find  we 
have  excelled  them  more  than  we  have  England.  Coming  to  partic- 
ulars, he  says  that  English  steel  rails  were  delivered  in  New  York 
in  1862  at  $103.44  in  gold  and  in  1864  at  $88  per  ton,  and  that  up 
to  1870  English  manufacturers  held  the  market ;  but  what  re- 
duced the  price  from  $103.44  to  $88  he  does  not  tell  us.  It  was 
certainly  not  our  competition,  for  during  the  three  years  prior  to 
1870  we  produced  less  than  tMjenty  thousand  tons.  But  in  1870, 
he  says,  under  the  specific  duty  of  $28  per  ton,  we  took  the  home 
market  and  held  it  until  during  the  last  summer  the  home  and 
the  foreign  price  were  substantially  the  same.  He  might  have 
made  his  statement  still  stronger  and  said  that  in  1875, 1876, 1877, 
and  1878  the  prices  in  the  United  States  were  lower  than  in 
Great  Britain.  But  does  that  prove  that  the  high  taxes  put  on 
the  rails  have  been  beneficial  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  ? 
For  the  years  prior  to  1870  the  tax  was  45  per  cent,  and  the 
prices  ranged  from  $106  to  $166  per  ton  ;  so  that  the  duty  at  the 
lowest  was  $47.70  per  ton,  and  on  the  highest  $74.70  per  ton.  If 
it  was  high  duties  that  developed  this  industry,  why  did  it  not, 
prior  to  1870,  reach  the  point  claimed  for  it  in  1889  ?  The  steel- 
rail  industry  is  new,  and  it  started  in  this  country  soon  after  it  did 
in  England.  And  as  soon  as  our  manufacturers  could  procure 
the  patents  and  protect  themselves  against  competition  at  home, 
and  through  the  tariff  be  protected  against  competition  from 
abroad,  they  went  to  work  to  amass  a  great  fortune.  The  prices 
from  1875  to  1878  and  the  prices  given  by  Mr.  Blaine  show  that 
we  can  produce  rails  as  cheaply  as  they  can  be  produced  in  Eng- 
land, and  when  the  demand  is  dull  and  prices  fall  so  that  Eng- 
lish rails  cannot  be  imported  and  pay  the  heavy  duty  and  be  sold, 
then  our  manufacturers  have  the  market  all  to  themselves  and 
fix  the  price  according  to  the  demand.  When  the  demand  is 
great  and  the  prices  go  up,  as  they  did  in  1871,  '72,  and  '73,  then 
importation  sets  in,  and  the  consumer  pays  the  whole  amount  fixed 
by  the  tariff  on  both  foreign  and  domestic  product. 

Mr.  Blaine  challenges  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Cleveland 
in  his  message  that  **  while  comparatively  a  few  use  the  imported 
articles,  millions  of  our  people,  who  never  use  and  never  saw  any 
of  the  foreign  products,  purchase  and  use  things  of  the  same 


THE  OLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  97 

kind  made  in  this  country,  and  pay  therefor  nearly  or  quite  the 
same  enhanced  price  which  the  duty  adds  to  the  imported  arti- 
cles." Mr,  Blaine  thinks  "Mr.  Cleveland's  argument  would  have 
been  strengthened  if  he  had  given  a  few  examples — nay,  if  he 
had  given  one  example — to  sustain  his  charge."  I  Avill  do  myself 
the  pleasure  of  strengthening  Mr.  Cleveland's  argument,  and  will 
give  him  for  Mr.  Cleveland  "a few  examples"  of  the  accuracy  of 
that  statement.  I  will  take  steel  rails  to  start  with.  In  1870  we 
imported  44,000  tons  of  steel  rails,  for  which  we  paid  in  the  for- 
eign market  $52  per  ton,  and  duty  at  $38.  The  cost  price  in 
our  market,  duty  paid,  Avas  $78,  exclusive  of  costs  of  freight,  in- 
surance, commissions,  profits,  etc.  At  the  same  time  we  produced 
34,000  tons;  price  at  home  $102.50.  In  1872  we  imported 
105,000  tons,  for  which  we  paid  in  the  foreign  market  $58.17  per 
ton;  duty,  $28  per  ton;  together,  $86.17  price  laid  down  in  New 
York,  exclusive  of  freights  and  other  charges.  At  the  same  time 
we  produced  83,000  tons  at  $112  per  ton.  In  1873  we  imported 
139,000  tons  ;  price  in  foreign  country,  $64.43  per  ton  ;  duty, 
$28  ;  making  $92.43  per  ton.  At  the  same  time  we  produced  at 
home  115,000  tons  ;  home  price,  $120.50  per  ton.  In  1880  we 
imported  612,000  tons  of  pig-iron,  worth  in  foreign  markets  $18.84 
per  ton;  duty,  $7  per  ton  ;  whole  cost  delivered  in  New  York, 
without  freight  or  other  charges,  $25.84.  Eeferring  to  the  price- 
list  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  we  find  the  average  price 
for  that  year  of  pig-iron  in  Philadelphia  was  $28.50.  In  1881  we 
imported  295,666  tons  of  pig  iron,  for  which  we  paid  in  the  foreign 
market  $20.56  per  ton  ;  $7  duty  added  made  $27.56  delivered  in 
New  York.  At  the  same  time  the  average  American  price  was 
$31.36  per  ton.  In  1882  we  imported  118,062  tons,  for  which  we 
paid  in  the  foreign  market  $18.77  per  ton  ;  $7  duty  added  made 
$25.77  delivered  in  New  York.  The  American  price  for  the 
.same  time  was  $31.36  per  ton.  In  each  one  of  these  cases  the 
domestic  manufacturer  sold  his  product  for  a  price  high  enough 
to  cover  foreign  price,  tariff,  and  all  other  charges  added. 

Tliese  "few  examples"  may  be  accepted  as  evidences  of  the 
cost  to  the  home  consumer  of  the  articles  which  are  dutiable  and 
which  are  imported.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  to  say  that  for  many 
articles  chargeable  with  duty  the  price  here  is  lower  than  in 
foreign  countries.  When  it  is,  we  do  not  import  them.  When- 
ever the  price  rises  high  enough  to  import  and  sell  with  duty 


98  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

added,  then  the  similar  article  produced  at  home  gets  "  nearly  or 
quite  the  same  enhanced  price." 

The  steel  rails  which  Mr.  Blaine  says  were  worth  135  per  ton  in 
England  and  the  same  in  the  United  States  are  not  affected  by 
the  tariff.  When  the  demand  is  small  and  prices  are  low,  our 
manufacturers  fall  below  the  top  of  the  tariff  wall  and  supply 
them  at  such  prices  above  cost  of  production  as  they  can  obtain  ; 
but  when  the  demand  is  great  and  prices  rise,  the  domestic  man- 
ufacturer uses  the  tariff  to  lift  his  prices  117  per  ton  higher  than 
the  foreign  price.  Then  both  the  foreign  and  the  domestic  rails 
carry  to  the  consumer  the  full  tariff  rates.  Mr.  Blaine  asks  if  any 
one  believes  that  steel  rails  could  ever  have  been  furnished  as 
cheaply  as  English  rails  except  by  the  steady  competition  of 
American  producers  with  the  English  and  among  themselves. 
What  competition  was  there  among  American  manufactur- 
ers ?  It  was  a  monopoly.  The  manufacturers  owned  a  patent, 
and  there  could  be  no  competition.  There  was  no  competition 
against  the  English  manufacturers,  for  the  tariff  prohibited  them 
from  competing  except  when  prices  were  so  high  that  the  English- 
man could  send  his  rails  here,  pay  duty  and  charges,  and  make 
profits,  though  $28  on  the  ton  less  than  the  American  manufact- 
urer was  making. 

He  cites  another  instance  of  the  wisdom  of  the  tariff  in  build- 
ing up  the  carpet  trade.  He  says  that  in  1860  nearly  one-half  of 
the  carpets  used  in  the  United  States  were  imported,  and  now  out 
of  sixty  millions  paid  annually  for  carpets  less  than  a  million  is 
paid  for  foreign  carpets.  And  he  might  truthfully  have  added, 
"  There  was  no  reason  why  we  should  buy  any  from  abroad." 
The  woollen  industry  ever  since  1824  has  had  a  dead  body  bound 
on  its  shoulders  in  the  tax  on  wool,  and  it  will  never  show  what 
it  is  capable  of  doing  until  wool  and  all  other  materials  used  in  its 
manufacture  are  relieved  from  tariff  taxation,  and  a  revenue  duty 
placed  upon  the  finished  product.  If  wool,  like  cotton,  had  been 
free  of  duty  from  1850  to  1860,  it  would  have  made  the  same 
growth  as  cotton  manufactures;  but  the  30-per  cent,  duty  on 
wool  greatly  restricted  the  domestic  production,  and  it 
made  but  little  progress  till  after  the  tariff  of  1857,  when  all 
wool  under  twenty  cents  a  pound  was  put  on  the  free  list.  In  the 
three  years  between  that  time  and  1860  it  made  a  very  consid- 
erable growth.    Mr.  Blaine  begs  the  question  when  he  says  that 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  99 

carpets  are  cheaper  now  than  they  were  thirty  years  ago.  So  is 
everything;  but  taxing  people  did  not  reduce  the  price,  or  give 
the  carpet-workers  better  wages,  as  he  contends.  The  price  of 
carpets  has  been  reduced  by  the  improved  methods  of  manufact- 
ure, and  the  wages  of  the  workman  by  the  increased  amount  of 
work  he  does  in  a  day. 

Mr.  Blaine  wants  to  know  what  the  thousands  of  laborers  em- 
ployed in  steel-rail  manufacture  would  do  if  the  tariff  were  removed 
from  steel  rails  ?  The  answer  is  ready  :  they  would  make  steel 
rails.  He  himself  shows  that  we  can,  and,  when  we  have  to  do  so, 
do,  produce  steel  rails  as  cheaply  as  they  are  produced  in  England. 
Now,  if  the  duty  were  entirely  removed,  a  ton  of  rails  would  be 
very  much  cheaper ;  tliei\  would  bj  a  much  greater  demand  for 
them  and  for  the  labor  that  makes  them;  that  increased  demand 
would  increase  the  wages  of  the  men  ;  there  would  be  more  rails 
made,  more  railroads  built,  more  men  employed,  and  a  reduction 
in  transportation  charge. .  The  only  change  which  would  be  made 
that  would  be  damaging  to  anybody  would  be  the  reduction  in  the 
profits  of  the  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Blaine  seems  to  be  elated  -  the  statement  of  Mr.  Gladstone 
that  we  produce  cloth  and  iro!i  li.f^h  prices,  instead  of  cereals 
and  cotton  at  low  prices,  and  he  proceeds  to  thank  him  profusely 
in  the  name  of  all  the  friends  of  high  taxes.  But  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  farmer  Avill  not  become  hilarious  at  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Blaine  to  increase  for  him  the  cost  of  producing  his  cotton 
and  his  grains.  The  whole  progress  of  our  industrial  system  and 
its  enormous  growth  have  come  through  decreasing  the  cost  of 
production  by  utilizing  machinery  and  other  agencies  for  increas- 
ing product.  If  the  Western  farmer  could  lower  the  present  cost 
of  producing  a  bushel  of  wheat,  there  would  be  a  greater  margin 
of  profit  between  cost  of  production  a.i  \  market  prices.  If  a 
Southern  fa.  .ucr  could,  by  labor-saving  machinery  or  otherwise, 
reduce  the  cost  of  making  a  bale  of  cotton  one-half  below  what  it  is 
to-day,  the  South  would  advance  with  even  greater  strides  than 
she  is  now  making. 

As  Mr,  Gladstone  says,  our  manufacturers  are  producing  iron 
and  cloth  at  high  prices,  and  our  farmers  have  to  pay  that 
increased  cost  when  they  buy  and  consume  these  products,  and 
it  is  an  unnecessarily  burdensome  and  exliausting  tax  upon  them. 
If  the  tax  on  coal  and  ores  were  taken  off,  iron  could  be  produced 


100  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

clieaper  ;  if  the  tax  on  wool  and  machinery  and  dyes  were  taken 
off,  the  cost  of  producing  woollen  goods  would  be  reduced ;  but, 
as  it  is,  the  price  to  the  consu  mer  is  enhanced  by  these  taxes,  con- 
sumption is  restricted,  and  many  have  to  go  without  who  would 
otherwise  be  enabled  to  buy. 

Mr.  Blaine  seems  to  believe  in  scarcity,  and  that  it  would  be 
better  for  our  farmers  not  to  raise  so  much  grain  because  the 
foreign  market  is  so  filled  that  the  prices  are  unduly  lowered. 
What  else  would  he  have  them  raise  ?  Would  he  have  them  stop 
work  ?  The  interest  on  their  debts  does  not  stop  running  when 
they  stop  working.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  let  the  farmers  go 
on  working  and  raise  all  the  wheat  they  can  and  send  it  to  foreign 
markets,  where  there  are  now,  and  always  will  be,  consumers 
enough  to  take  it  all  at  good  prices,  if  our  government  will  only 
let  us  take  what  they  have  to  give  in  exchange  and  what  we  want 
and  need  ?  England  needs  our  food  products,  and  when  she  takes 
them  to  the  extent  that  we  take  from  her  what  she  has  to  give, 
then  she  must  look  to  India,  Russia,  and  other  countries  to  make 
out  her  supply  and  take  from  them  products  that  cost  them  more 
to  produce  than  ours  cost  us.  If  we  examine  the  Report  on  For- 
eign Commerce  for  1888,  we  will  see  in  a  table  prepared  by  our 
Bureau  of  Statistics  that  the  export  price  of  our  wheat  for  a 
series  of  years  has  been  lower  than  the  export  price  of  any  other 
country  on  the  globe.  What  we  want  is  not  to  limit  the  product 
or  to  increase  the  cost  of  production,  as  Mr.  Blaine  seems  to 
think,  but  to  increase  the  facilities  of  exchange.  An  increased 
recognition  of  the  natural  right  of  our  farmers  to  buy  and  sell 
would  be  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  Blaine  does  not  controvert  the  fact,  stated  by  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, that  wages  have  increased  in  England  since  the  removal  of 
all  shackles  from  her  foreign  commerce.  But  he  attributes  the 
advance  to  the  emigration  of  her  workmen  to  the  United  States. 
Both  causes  contributed  to  it.  It  is  not  a  little  surprising  to  wit- 
ness the  facility  with  which  Protectionists  shift  their  logic.  He 
has  been  impressing  us  all  through  his  very  able  article  with  the 
idea  that  it  was  protection  that  raised  wages  ;  now  he  says  it  is 
demand  and  supply.  Mr.  Gladstone  used  the  same  argument  for 
free  trade  which  Mr.  Blaine  had  used  for  protection  :  in  order  to 
parry  the  blow  Mr.  Blaine  contends  that  it  was  not  free  trade  that 
increased  English  wages,  but  scarcity  of  English  labor.     It  is  very 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  101 

gratifying  to  find  Mr.  Blaine  admitting  that  wages  are  regulated 
by  demand  and  supply,  and  that  when  English  workmen  emi- 
grated to  the  United  States,  the  labor  supply  was  reduced,  the 
demand  for  labor  increased,  and  therefore  the  rate  of  wages  was 
increased.  Following  it  up,  the  immigration  here  increasing,  the 
supply  decreased  correspondingly  the  demand  for  labor,  and  re- 
tarded the  increase  of  the  rate  of  wages. 

Oar  rate  of  wages,  just  as  that  in  England,  is  fixed  by  the  amount 
of  demand  for  work,  the  number  of  laborers  ready  to  respond  to 
that  demand,  and  the  skill  and  capacity  of  the  laborer  to  do  the 
work  required  by  his  employer.  He  is  not  protected  by  any 
tariff  imposed  on  the  products  of  his  labor,  and  cannot  be.  In 
common  with  the  great  body  of  the  people,  he  is  taxed  to  put 
money  in  the  pockets  of  the  man  who  owns  the  products,  not  the 
muscle  or  the  brain.  Protecting  his  product  does  not  protect 
him  against  competition.  There  are  no  protective  duties  on 
foreign  labor.  It  is  on  the  free  list.  And  so  far  as  our  labor  is 
concerned,  it  has  had  to  contend  against  free  trade  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  government.  The  tariff  protects  the  thing  that 
labor  makes,  but  that  does  not  belong  to  him  ;  it  belongs  to  his 
employer.  There  is  a  tax  of  seventy-five  cents  on  a  ton  of  bitu- 
minous coal,  but  it  does  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  miner ;  he 
gets  forty  or  fifty  cents  a  ton  for  his  work,  which  he  would  get 
without  the  tariff,  just  as  the  anthracite  miner  does,  whose  com- 
peting article  comes  in  free  of  duty.  The  tariff  benefit  goes  into 
the  pocket  of  the  owner  of  the  coal,  and  he  may  manifest  a  great 
deal  of  zeal  for  the  welfare  of  his  workmen,  but  he  never  gives 
them  the  seventy-five  cents  which  Congress  has  imposed  on  the 
ton  of  coal  for  his  benefit.  There  is  a  tax  on  iron  ore  of  seventy- 
five  cents,  but  the  miner  only  gets  from  fifty  to  seventy-five  cents 
per  ton  for  his  work,  and  he  never  gets  the  tariff  benefits  ;  they 
go  to  the  owner  of  the  ore.  It  is  the  ore  that  is  protected,  not 
the  muscle  that  digs  it.  There  is  a  duty  of  16.72  on  a  ton 
of  pig-iron,  but  the  workmen  only  get  from  11.25  to  11.50  per 
ton  for  their  labor,  and  that  they  would  get  without  the  tariff, 
because  no  one  is  prohibited  from  competing  with  them.  The 
prohibition  against  competition  is  only  against  the  pig-iron,  and 
that  does  not  belong  to  them.  The  manufacturer  gets  it  and 
keeps  it.  There  is  a  duty  of  117  on  a  ton  of  steel  rails,  but  the 
laborer  only  gets  from  $3.50  to  15,  and  that  he  would  get  without 


102  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

any  tariff.  The  $17  goes  to  the  owner  of  the  steel  rails,  and  he 
keeps  it,  and  if  his  workmen  can  keep  their  souls  and  bodies  to- 
gether they  will  do  well. 

Mr.  Blaine  asks,  How  can  the  Free-Trader  explain  the  fact 
that  a  great  many  articles  manufactured  in  the  United  States 
find  ready  and  large  sale  in  Canada  ?  He  says  that  we  have  to 
pay  the  same  tariff  duties  and  higher  transportation  charges  to 
reach  the  Canadian  market,  and  he  appends  a  long  list  of  manu- 
factured articles  which  we  export  to  and  sell  in  Canada  in  com- 
petition with  English  rivals.  Before  proceeding  to  answer  hia 
question,  I  must  thank  him  on  behalf  of  all  the  tax-ridden  people 
of  the  United  States  for  admitting  away  his  case.  There  is  not 
a  shred  of  the  web  of  controversy  left.  He  admits  that  we  can 
manufacture  our  goods,  pay  higher  freight  charges  to  foreign 
markets,  and  then  hold  our  own  against  our  rivals.  If  we  can 
do  that  in  the  foreign  market,  we  can  certainly  do  it  at  home, 
when  the  foreigner  pays  all  the  freight  charges  to  reach  us  and 
we  pay  none.  Then  what  is  the  use  of  protective  duties  on  these 
goods  ?  No  tariff  can  protect  any  article  against  competition  at 
the  place  where  it  is  produced  at  the  lowest  cost,  because  no  arti- 
cle can  compete  with  it.  There  can  be  no  importation  and,  of 
course,  no  competition.  This  admission  must  have  dropped  from 
his  pen  in  **  the  heat  of  debate. ''  His  friends  will  find  it  in  all 
the  roads  they  travel  in  the  near  future. 

The  answer  to  his  question  is  that  we  do  produce  these  articles, 
and  many  more,  more  cheaply  than  they  can  be  produced  in  any 
other  country  or  by  any  other  people  on  the  globe.  We  have  got 
more  skilful  and  more  productive  labor  than  any  other  people.  It 
turns  out  more  and  better  product  in  a  day  than  any  rival,  and 
while  it  may  receive  double  the  wages  of  others  it  does  treble  the 
work,  and  in  some  cases  ten  times  as  much.  These  articles,  it 
will  be  noticed,  are  of  that  class  in  which  the  labor  is  a  large  element 
in  the  cost,  and  just  as  any  article  becomes  further  removed  from 
the  raw-material  condition,  just  so  it  becomes  further  removed 
from  competition.  It  is  our  superior  labor  that  gives  us  pre- 
cedence, and  if  we  take  the  tax  off  the  raw  material  we  will  add 
woollens,  cottons,  iron  and  steel,  and  many  other  kinds  of  manu- 
factures to  our  exports.  The  only  item  of  woollen  manufacture 
in  this  class  is  carpets.  They  are  made  of  the  cheapest  wool, 
bearing  the  lowest  duty.     Now,  if  we  can  pay  this  low  duty  on 


T^E  OLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  103 

carpet  wools  and  pay  higher  transportation  charges,  and  still  hold 
the  foreign  market,  could  we  not  sell  more  carpets  if  we  could 
produce  them  still  lower  ?  Aiid,  could  we  not  produce  them  at  a 
lower  cost  if  the  tax  on  carpet  wool  were  taken  off  ?  And  then  if 
the  heavy  tax  were  taken  off  combing  and  clothing  wools,  could  we 
not  largely  increase  our  exports  of  woollen  goods  ?  And  if  we 
could  increase  our  exports  to  Canada  and  hold  her  markets 
against  our  foreign  rivals,  could  we  not  hold  our  home  markets, 
when  the  foreigner  would  have  to  pay  the  cost  of  reaching  us 
before  he  could  compete  ? 

I  hardly  know  how  to  express  my  gratification  at  having  this 
admission  from  so  distinguished  an  advocate  and  so  able  a  de- 
fender of  commercial  restriction.  With  the  facts  as  he  states 
them — and  they  are  correct — there  can  be  no  justification  for 
keeping  any  taxes  on  these  articles.  There  may  be  a  reason  for 
it,  but  it  is  a  reason  that  cannot  be  defended.  A  duty  on  these 
goods  can  only  serve  the  manufacturers  in  one  way.  When  they 
form  combinations  and  trusts,  and  make  high  rates  to  sell  to  our 
people  and  low  rates  to  sell  to  foreigners,  there  is  no  way  to 
interfere  with  them,  and  they  can  sell  to  us  at  combination 
prices  and  to  foreigners  at  competition  prices.  Many  articles 
are  exported  and  sold  to  foreigners  at  lower  prices  than  they  are 
to  citizens  at  home.  The  tariff  is  a  powerful  offender  that 
watches  at  the  gate  and  guards  and  protects  the  robber  while  he 
is  in  the  house  spoiling  the  goods  of  the  husbandman. 

Mr.  Blaine  contends  that  protection  not  only  increases  the 
wealth  of  the  protected  manufacturer,  into  whose  pocket  the  in- 
creased price  goes,  but  the  farmer  also,  out  of  whose  pocket  it 
goes  ;  and  he  very  triumphantly  refers  to  the  census  of  1860  and 
that  of  1880  to  show  that  national  wealth  has  been  growing  all 
over  the  Union,  in  the  agricultural  States  as  well  as  in  the  manu- 
facturing States.  If  he  had  gone  back  ten  years  aud  started  at 
1850,  he  could  have  proved  the  same  facts  under  the  free-trade 
tariffs  in  existence  for  the  ten  years  between  1850  and  18G0.  So 
the  fact  of  increase  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  determine  the  rela- 
tive merits  of  the  two  opposing  policies.  But  let  us  compare  tlie 
decade  from  1850  to  1860  with  that  from  1860  to  1870— the  first 
under  revenue  tariffs,  tlie  other  under  protective  tariffs.  In  1850 
the  national  wealth  was  $7,130,000,000;  in  1860  it  was  $16, 160,000- 
000  ;  which  shows  a  gain  of  126  per  cent. — a  ratio  of  increase  that 


l04  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

has  never  been  approximated  during  any  decade  either  before  or 
since  the  war.  In  1825 — in  the  beginning  of  that  period  which 
Mr.  Blaine  characterizes  as  one  of  the  most  prosperous  that  the 
country  has  ever  had — the  national  wealth  was  $3,373,000,000. 
In  1832,  at  the  end  of  that  seven  years  of  fatness,  the  national 
wealth  reached  $4,071,000,000.  (I  quote  from  tlie  tables  of  the 
director  of  the  mint  for  1881.)  This  shows  an  increase  of  25  per 
cent,  in  the  seven  years.  Let  us  now  compare  the  increase  dur- 
ing the  first  seven  years  under  the  free-trade  tariff  of 
1846.  In  1846  the  national  wealth  was  $6,302,000,000,  and  in 
1853  it  was  $9,708,000,000,  \viiich  was  an  increase  of  54  per  cent. 
At  the  end  of  the  loxt  seven  years  under  the  free-trade  tariffs  of 
1846  and  1857  the  national  wealth  was  $16,160,000,000,  which 
was  an  increase  .^f  66  per  cent.  This  was  the  last  of  the  free- 
trade  era  in  the  United  fates.  Since  then  we  have  had  thirty 
years  of  high  tariffs,  high  taxes,  and  high  obstructions  to  trade. 
Leaving  1860,  we  leave  the  national  wealth  accumulating  at  a  rate 
exceeding  13  per  cent,  per  annum. 

Now  let  us  compare  the  growth  of  national  wealth  in  periods 
of  seven  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  protective  policy.  I  take 
periods  of  seven  years  in  order  to  make  comparisons  with  that 
remarkable  period  from  1825  to  1832,  which  Mr.  Clay  thought 
then,  and  Mr.  Blaine  thinks  now,  was  the  most  prosperous  the 
country  has  ever  had.  In  1867,  under  the  stimulating  effect  of 
high  duties  and  restricted  trade,  the  national  wealth  was  $22,- 
958,000,000,  which  was  an  increase  of  only  42  per  cent.,  instead 
of  66  per  cent,  under  the  last  seven  years  of  free  trade.  But  it 
mey  be  said  that  this  period  embraced  the  war,  with  its  great 
destruction  of  values.  Leaving  this  period  out  of  consideration, 
let  us  take  the  next  seven  years.  In  1874  the  national  wealth 
was  $32,420,000,000,  which  was  an  increase  of  only  41  per  cent, 
over  1867.  In  1880  the  national  wealth  was  $43,300,000,000. 
For  the  three  or  four  years  preceding  it  was  increasing  at  a  ratio 
less  than  two  billions  a  year.  If  we  add  two  billions  to  the  sum 
of  $43,300,000,000,  it  will  make  $45,300,000,000  for  1881,  the 
end  of  the  last  seven  years  for  which  we  have  any  official  report ; 
and  that  would  show  an  increase  of  30  per  cent. 

From  these  comparisons  it  would  seem  that  the  great  American 
system,  like  the  great  American  crawfish,  was  advancing  back- 
wards and  carrying  the  country  with  it.     If  tliese  comparisons 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  105 

afford  any  comfort  or  encouragemeat  to  the  advocates  of  high 
taxes,  I  certainly  do  not  envy  them  while  they  grow  hilarious  with 
the  pleasure  which  their  contemplation  affords. 

Mr.  Blaine  thinks  he  makes  a  strong  point  for  protection  when 
he  shows  that  the  New  England  States  and  J*^ew  York  and  Penn- 
sylvania (which  he  calls  i  .j  eight  manufacturing  States)  had  in 
1860  $5,123,000,000  cl  aggregate  wealth,  and  had  increased  it  to 
$16,228,000,000  in  1880,  which  he  says  is  216  percent. ;  but  let  us  go 
back  to  1850  again,  and  see  how  they  were  prospering  under  free 
trade  from  1850  to  1860.  In  1850  these  same  States  had  aggre- 
gate wealth  amounting  to  $2,930,000,000,  and  in  1860  they  had 
$5,123,000,000,  which  was  an  increase  of  75  percent.  After  1860 
they  began  their  career  under  high  protective  war  duties,  and  in 
1870  had  aggregate  wealth  amounting  to  $14,350,000,000,  which 
was  an  increase  of  180  per  cent,  over  1860,  or  18  per  cent,  per 
annum  !  I  give  it  up.  Protection  did  protect  the  manu- 
facturers while  the  government,  as  well  as  the  people,  was  buying 
at  high  prices  to  supply  the  consumption  and  waste  occasioned  by  a 
gigantic  war.  But  1  et  us  see  how  they  fared  after  the  war  was  over. 
In  1880  they  had  aggregate  wealth  amounting  to  $18,700,000,000, 
or  an  increase  over  1870  of  less  than  30  per  cent.,  or  3  per  cent,  per 
annum.  Now  that  the  war  is  over  these  manufacturing  States 
would  be  glad  to  return  to  the  i-atio  of  increase  they  enjoyed 
during  the  free-trade  decade,  which  was  7^^  per  cent,  per  annum, 
instead  of  3  per  cent,  per  annum  under  protection. 

Next  let  us  compare  the  growth  of  the  agricultural  States 
named  by  Mr.  Blaine  under  free  trade  and  protection.  In  1850 
the  States  named  by  him,  except  Minnesota,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska 
(which  were  not  States  at  that  time),  had  aggregate  wealth 
amounting  to  $990,000,000,  and  in  1860,  under  free  trade,  their 
wealth  amounted  to  $3,370,000,000.  This  was  an  increase  at  the 
rate  of  240  per  cent.  Now,  from  1860  to  1870,  under  protection, 
their  wealth  had  grown  to  $7,765,000,000,  which  was  an  increase 
of  130  per  cent. ;  but  that  is  a  long  way  behind  240  per  cent., 
which  they  made  in  the  free-trade  decade.  In  1880  the  wealth 
of  these  same  States  was  $11,650,000,000,  which  was  an  increase  of 
50  per  cent.  They  increased  at  24  per  cent,  per  annum  under 
free  trade,  and  5  per  cent,  per  annum  under  protection. 

Let  us  compare  Massachusetts  and  Illinois,  one  a  manufactur- 
ing State  and  the  other  au  ugiicultural  State.     Massachusetts 


106  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

had  in  1850  188,000,000  invested  in  manufactures  and  Illinois 
had  16,000,000.  Massachusetts  had  $573,000,000  of  wealth  ; 
Illinois  had  $156,000,000.  Massachusetts  had  994,000  people  and 
Illinois  had  851,000  people.  In  tlie  contest  for  wealth  Massachu- 
setts had  the  advantage  in  population  of  143,000  people,  of  $417,- 
000,000  more  capital,  and  fourteen  times  as  much  manufactur- 
ing capacity.  With  such  advantages  she  ought  to  have  left 
Illinois  out  of  sight  in  the  race  ;  but  at  the  end  of  the  contest  in 
1860  Illinois  had  caught  up  with  and  passed  her  rival,  having 
accumulated  $871,000,000,  while  Massachusetts  had  gotten  $815,- 
000,000.  Illinois  farmers,  unshackled  by  restrictions  on  their 
farm  products,  had  increased  her  wealth  at  457  per  cent.,  and 
Massachusetts  manufacturers  had  increased  hers  at  42  per  cent. 
They  now  start  a  new  race  under  the  fostering  care  of  a  protective 
tariff.  This  time  Illinois  starts  with  the  advantage  of  $56,000,- 
000  more  money  and  a  half-million  more  people,  but  when  the 
contest  was  ended  in  1870,  she  had  a  million  more  people  and  ten 
millions  less  money.  Illinois  had  increased  her  wealth  143  per 
cent,  under  protective  tariffs  and  457  per  cent,  under  free-trade 
tariffs,  while  Massachusetts  made  42-per  cent,  increase  under  low 
tariffs  and  161-per  cent,  increase  under  high  tariffs.  It  seems 
from  this  that  the  protective  tariff  increased  the  profits  of  the 
manufacturer,  but  decreased  the  profits  of  the  farmer.  That  was 
its  history  at  the  time.  Now,  with  few  exceptions,  it  is  decreas 
ing  the  profits  of  both.  Mr.  Blaine  comforts  the  South  by  telling 
them  that  under  protection  they  have  since  1860  increased  their 
wealth  80  per  cent.,  or  4  per  cent,  per  annum.  If  he  will  look 
back  to  the  period  between  1850  and  1860,  he  will  see  that  they 
gained  wealth  at  a  rate  exceeding  10  per  cent,  per  annum,  instead 
of  4  per  cent,  under  protective  tariffs  since  then. 

The  taxpayers  of  the  United  States,  recognizing  in  the  practi- 
cal results  of  the  protective  tariffs  the  truth  of  Chief-Justice 
Marshall's  utterance,  that  a  power  to  tax  is  a  power  to  destroy, 
are  not  very  choice  in  selecting  the  words  with  which  they  char- 
acterize the  few  hundred  beneficiaries  whose  arms  are  in  their 
pockets  up  to  the  shoulders.  They  have  sometimes  distinguished 
these  large  proprietors  by  the  mediaeval  designation  of  "Eobber 
Barons."  When  they  see  the  manufacturers  of  steel  rails,  by  the 
aid  of  tariff  taxes,  taking  out  of  their  pockets  in  twelve  years 
more  than  $150,000,000,  and  all  the  manufacturers  of  iron  and 


THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY.  107 

steel  in  the  same  time  taking  over  $600,000,000,  it  is  hardly  to 
be  supposed  that  they  will  use  the  most  delicate  terms  to  convey 
their  ideas.  One  of  these  gentlemen,  a  native  of  the  same 
country  as  Mr.  Gladstone,  has  given  to  the  public  his  opinions  as 
to  the  best  way  to  expend  the  large  incomes  which  they  enjoy. 
The  idea  of  plain  people  is  that  the  pocket  of  the  taxpayer  is  the 
best  place  for  them,  and  the  place  where  they  rightfully  belong. 

Mr.  Gladstone  did  not,  in  his  discussion,  use  offensive  words 
in  speaking  of  the  beneficiaries  of  protection,  and  Mr.  Blaine 
shows  the  liveliest  appreciation  of  his  delicacy  of  feeling.  Mr. 
Gladstone  is  three  thousand  miles  away.  He  has  not  been 
familiar  with  the  results  of  American  protective  tariffs  for  the 
last  thirty  years.  He  has  not  seen  the  farmers  of  England,  as  we 
have  those  of  America,  brought  deeper  and  deeper  in  debt  year  by 
year  and  forced  to  borrow  back  at  high  interest  the  money  that 
was  extorted  from  them  by  "  legislative  decrees."  He  has  not 
seen  English  manufacturers,  as  we  have  seen  American  manu- 
facturers, closing  down  and  discharging  their  laborers  because 
consumers  are  not  able  to  buy  their  high-cost  goods.  In  his 
essay  he  simply  discussed  a  principle,  without  characterizing  the 
wrongdoers.  If  Mr.  Blaine  could  have  heard  "  the  Grand  Old 
Man"  fifty  years  ago,  when,  in  the  prime  of  his  young  manhood, 
he  was  supporting  Villiers,  Huskisson,  Bright,  Peel,  and  Cobden 
when  they  were  assailing  the  avarice  and  greed  of  English  land- 
lords who  clamored  for  the  retention  of  the  tax  on  the  bread  that 
fed  the  mouths  of  the  working  men  and  women  of  England,  he 
might  have  caught  the  sound  of  an  occasional  adjective  as  it  fell 
from  Mr.  Gladstone's  lips. 

Mr.  Blaine  must  not  think  that  strong  language  of  the  kind 
quoted  by  him  is  confined  to  the  plain  people  of  the  United  States. 
Sometimes  it  gets  in  the  mouths  of  men  in  high  stations.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  holding  their  places  for  life 
and  uninfluenced  by  the  prejudices  that  sometimes  move  the 
multitude,  declared  from  the  bench  that 

*'  to  lay  with  one  hand  the  power  of  the  government  on  the  property  of  the  citizen, 
and  wilh  the  other  to  beetow  it  upon  favored  individuals  to  aid  private  enterprises, 
and  build  up  private  fortunes,  Is  none  the  less  a  robbery  because  it  is  done  under  the 
forms  of  law  and  is  called  taxation." 

Eighty  summers  have  passed  ever  the  head  of  the  great 
English  statesman  who  has  spoken  for  the  emancipation  of  our 


108  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

labor  and  our  trade.  A  long  life,  pure  and  stainless  as  the  snow 
that  falls  on  his  own  highland  hills,  lies  behind  him — a  life  that 
has  been  accompanied  all  along  its  lengthened  way  by  a  great  in- 
tellect and  a  pure  heart — a  life  that  has  been  conspicuous  for  its 
devotion  to  the  best  interests  of  his  own  countrymen  and  of  man- 
kind. The  closing  years  of  his  life  are  consecrated  to  the  eman- 
cipation of  Ireland.  In  this  last,  noblest,  and  best  work  of  a 
long  and  useful  career,  let  him  feel  assured  that  the  people  of 
America  extend  him  their  heart-felt  sympathies,  and  indulge  the 
fond  hope  that  his  days  may  be  lengthened  many  years;  not  for 
the  weal  of  Ireland  alone,  but  for  that  of  England  and  the  world. 

EoGER  Q.  Mills. 


FREE    TRADE    OR    PROTECTION. 
By  the   Hon.  Justin  S.  Morrill. 


^uAtZ.  «/^w6^»vuJ^ 


Hon.   Justin  S.   Morrill. 


Hon.  Justin  Smith  Morrill  is  of  New  England  ancestry,  and  was 
bom  April  14,  1810,  in  the  village  of  Strafford,  Orange  county,  Ver- 
mont. His  earliest  years  were  passed  dui-ing  that  stormy  period  in  the 
nation's  history  which  succeeded  the  war  of  1812,  when  the  commerce 
and  industries  of  the  United  States  were  slowly  emerging  from  the  sec- 
ond conflict  with  Great  Britain.  It  was  an  era  of  intense  patriotism  and 
devotion  to  the  principles  of  Federal  government,  the  birth  time  of  the 
sentiment, — America  for  the  Americans. 

Like  the  majority  of  boys  of  his  day,  he  received  a  fair  common 
school  education.  He  was  clever,  apt  to  learn,  and  practical  in  his  ideas 
and  ways.  On  leaving  school  he  engaged  in  mercantile  pursuits  till 
1848,  when  his  attention  was  diverted  to  agriculture. 

But  he  was  not  destined  to  remain  in  the  peaceful  seclusion  which  is 
the  farmer's  heritage.  The  attention  of  the  community  had  been 
directed  toward  him  as  a  clever  logician,  an  incorruptible  patriot,  and  he 
was  nominated  by  the  Republican  party  for  Congress,  elected  to  that 
body  by  a  handsome  majority,  and  served  his  constituents  in  that  capacity 
from  the  third  of  December,  1855,  till  the  third  of  March,  1867,  having 
been  re-elected  no  less  than  five  times,  a  record  which  speaks  eloquently 
for  itself. 

Space  will  not  admit  of  more  than  a  casual  glance  at  his  work  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  covering  as  it  does  a  continuoiis  period  of  twelve 
years.  Through  the  trying  scenes  of  the  Civil  War  he  stood  manfully  at 
his  post,  serving  the  interests  of  his  country  and  party  with  an  unalterable 
devotion.  He  was  the  author  of  the  celebrated  "  Morrill  Tariff  Bill"  of 
1861,  whose  far-reacliing  provisions  and  legal  acumen  were  the  subject 
then  of  as  much  dipcussion  by  the  nation  at  large  as  is  the  present  revision 
of  the  tariff  by  the  Fifty-first  Congress.  In  1864-5  he  acted  sis  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  In  1866  he  published  a  volume 
entitled,  "  Self-Consciousness  of  Noted  Persons,"  which  attracted  wide 
and  favorable  criticism  and  secured  the  writer  a  place  in  the  first  rank 
of  easayists. 

The  people  of  Vermont,  more  than  satisfied  with  their  representative, 
sent  him  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  1867.  Since  then  he  has  served 
continuously  in  that  august  assembly,  his  present  term  expiring  in  1891. 


112  HON.  JUSTIN  S.  MORRILL. 

In  the  Senate  chamber  Mr.  Morrill  is  a  conspicuous  figure.  Despite 
his  advancing  years  his  intellect  is  still  as  keen,  his  wit  as  trenchant,  and 
his  jxiwors  of  debate  as  formidable  as  ever.  A  strong  Protectionist,  he 
never  tires  in  the  defence  of  his  favorite  theory.  "  Protection  turns  out 
not  merely  good  work,"  he  says,  "but  the  best."  To  him  Free  Trade 
means  the  ruin  of  agriculture  and  manufactiirers,  the  impoverishing  of 
the  American  workingman,  and  the  endangering  of  a  home  market  for 
domestic  products. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION. 

A  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  GLADSTONE-BLAINE  CONTROVERSY. 


BY  THE    HON.     JUSTIN    S.     MORRILL,    UNITED    STATES    SENATOR 
FROM   VERMONT. 


APOLOGY  FOR  THIS  ARTICLE. 

Any  extended  argument  of  the  Right  Honorable  W.  E.  Glad- 
stone must  always  afford  ample  evidence  of  great  ability,  as  well  as 
wealth  of  learning,  and  it  would  have  been  presumption  on  my 
part  to  accept  the  invitation  to  reply  to  his  recent  article  in  The 
North  American  Review  on  "  Free  Trade  or  Protection/'  if  it 
were  not  that  "  Protection/' the  easy  side  of  the  question,  had 
been  allotted  to  me.  It  was  a  further  encouragement  when  I 
found,  upon  examining  in  detail  Mr.  Gladstone's  free-trade  argu- 
mentation, that  I  could  sincerely  reciprocate  some  of  his  own  words, 
and  say,  While  we  listen  to  a  melody  presented  to  us  as  new, 
the  idea  gradually  arises  in  the  mind,  "  I  have  heard  this  before," 
and  it  has  been  heard  by  me  so  often  from  our  Democratic  revenue- 
reform  friends  that  the  refrain,  if  not  a  bore,  excites  neither  de- 
light nor  alarm. 

Remembering,  as  I  do,  the  masterly  speech  of  Mr.  Gladstone 
when,  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  he  opened  the  debate  on 
the  budget  of  1853,  and  also  his  later  eloquent  series  of  remark- 
able speeches  for  three  days  in  the  Midlothian  eampaign,  I  can 
have  no  feeling  but  that  of  the  highest  respect  for  one  who  must 
be  regarded  as  the  foremost  livjng  statesman  of  our  mother- 
country.     For  this  discussion  he  appears  to  have  formulated  a 


114  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

rale,  after  the  manner  of  the  Marquis  of  Qneensberry,  which  I 
cannot  refuse  to  accept,  that  "in  the  arena  of  discussion "  one 
must  take  his  chance  as  "  a  common  combatant,  entitled  to  free 
speech  and  to  fair  treatment,  but  to  nothing  more.*' 

It  is  my  purpose  to  controvert  some  share  of  the  free-trade 
assertions  directly,  but  for  the  most  part  by  the  general  scope  of 
my  reply,  as  to  copy  at  length  all  of  the  statements  to  be  refuted, 
and  to  follow  each  with  a  special  reply,  would  cover  too  much 
space.  Happily,  Mr.  Gladstone  does  not  sweeten  free  trade  by 
another  name  and  conceal  it  by  what,  in  America,  has  been 
styled  its  "varioloid,"  revenue  reform. 

Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  have  had  the  subject  of  "  Free  Trade 
or  Protection "  on  the  anvil  ever  since  he  was  challenged  to  its 
discussion  by  Mr.  McKay  pending  the  Presidential  election  of 
1888.  He  admits  the  victory  of  protection  in  that  election,  but 
strives  to  convince  Americans  of  their  folly.  His  great  ability  as 
an  instructor  may  be  admitted,  and  his  teachings  in  Great  Britain, 
where  he  has  had  experience,  are  deservedly  of  the  highest 
authority;  but  in  America,  where  we  all  regret  that  he  has  never 
set  his  foot,  they  are  as  unworthy  of  practical  application  and  as 
much  out  of  place  as  British  laws  for  the  regulation  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  India  would  be  if  applied  to  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 

THE    LOGIC    OF    FACTS. 

It  will  be  claimed  by  me  that  the  logic  of  facts  and  results  is 
more  worthy  of  acceptance  than  any  theory,  however  plausible  it 
may  seem  to  be,  and  that  by  this  test  American  protection  has 
long  been  triumphant  ;  not  arguing  that  an  excess  of  protection 
would  be  beneficial,  but  in  favor  of  such  moderate  and  healthful 
discrimination  as  will  protect  American  industries,  from  their 
birth  to  maturity,  against  destruction  by  foreign  competition. 

Protectionists  deny  that  there  is  any  possible  scientific  system 
of  tariff  upon  foreign  imports  which  merits  and  requires  univer- 
sal application.  It  is  a  question  of  practical  experience  alone  as 
to  what  may  be  best  at  the  time  for  each  and  every  independent 
nation,  to  be  most  intelligently  determined  by  its  own  legislative 
authority. 

Mr.  Gladstone  assumes,  in  substance,  as  Free-Traders  gen- 
erally assume,  that  free  trade,  or  the  let-alone  revenue  system, 
which  was  started  in  1846  with  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Jiaws,  and  practically  adopted  by  Great  Britain  less  than  thirty 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  115 

years  ago,  is  based  on  scientific  truth,  natural  law,  and  moral 
virtue,  applicable  to  all  nations  and  to  all  times  alike,  and  that 
any  other  system  is  not  only  false,  but  wasteful  and  unchristian. 
This  overlauded  economical  discovery  appears  to  have  been  un- 
known to  Bacon  and  Locke,  Newton  and  Paley,  unregarded  by  a 
great  majority  of  enlightened  Christian  nations,  and  especially 
unregarded  by  the  British  colonies.  And  yet  it  seems  almost  a 
personal  grief  to  Mr.  Gladstone  that  the  United  States  should  be 
unwilling  to  accept  the  beatitudes  of  free  trade,  although  British 
interests,  as  he  claims,  have  prospered,  and  will  prosper,  in  spite 
of  American  adherence  to  protection.  Why  not,  then,  let  us  alone  ? 
If  the  whole  world  were  one  vast  Utopia  of  communistic 
brethren,  and  swords  were  to  be  beaten  into  ploughshares  and 
spears  into  pruning-hooks,  free  trade  might  be  the  accepted  gos- 
pel of  all  international  intercourse,  and  the  glories  of  jjatriotism 
shunned  as  a  rproach  ;  but  the  world  is  a  conglomerate  of  differ- 
ent races  of  men,  having  discordant  ambitions,  higher  and  lower 
conditions  of  civilization  and  wealth,  many  religious  creeds,  un- 
equal physical  and  mental  vigor,  and  aptitudes  and  habits  as  di- 
verse as  color  and  climate.  The  idea  that  there  is  any  econom- 
ical principle,  whether  of  science,  nature,  or  morals,  which  should 
be  left  to  its  own  course,  and  thi*t  nothing  should  be  done  by  any 
people  through  legislation  to  change  or  to  elevate  and  increase 
tlieir  industrial  power,  is  the  fetich  of  British  Free-Traders.  As 
well  might  all  social  virtues  be  left  unprotected  and  without  leg- 
islation. As  well  leave  all  individuals  without  the  help  ot  educa- 
tion as  to  leave  the  nation  without  such  help.  It  is  nothing  less 
than  the  old  fallacy,  "  Shoot  without  taking  aim,  and  you  will  be 
sure  to  hit  the  mark."  Can  any  friend  of  Ireland,  for  instance, 
after  years  of  close  contact  with  a  great  free-trade  kingdom,  and 
with  two-thirds  of  its  productive  area  abandoned  to  permanent 
pjisture,  believe  that  the  free-trade  policy  has  been  best  for  Ire- 
land ?  The  sublime  virtue  of  having  no  prejudices  in  favor  of 
their  own  country  does  not  seem  to  have  taken  root  in  that  part 
of  the  United  Kingdom. 

UNDERPAID     BRITISH     LABOR     BENEFITED     BY    AMERICAN    PRO- 
TECTION. 

Mr.  Gladstone  claims  that  other  nations,  and  above  all  others 

the  United  States,  have  derived  immense  benefits  through  British 

free-trade  legislation.     If  this  should  be  admitted,  as  it  need  not 
8 


116  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

be,  why,  then,  should  the  United  States  wish  to  revolutionize  and 
change  its  position  by  a  change  of  its  revenue  policy  ?  But,  he 
says,  **  We  [Great  Britain]  have  not  on  this  ground  any  merits  or 
any  claims  whatever.  We  legislated  for  our  own  benefit  and  are 
satisfied  with  the  benefits  we  have  received/'  Other  nations  are 
also  satisfied  that  have  legislated  for  their  own  benefit,  though 
adversely  to  free  trade,  as,  with  the  exception  of  the  Britannic 
Isle,  the  whole  of  Europe  and  America  now  adheres  to  the  doc- 
trine of  protection.  The  people  of  every  nation  must  be  allowed 
to  comprehend  best  what  will  be  for  their  own  benefit,  notwith- 
standing the  gracious  efforts  of  British  statesmen  to  promulgate 
their  precepts  and  expound  their  virtuous  example.  Few  out- 
side of  Great  Britain  will  care  to  dispute  that  free  trade  may  now 
be  her  wisest  policy,  and  perhaps  a  paramount  necessity ;  nor  will 
any  one  doubt,  were  it  otherwise,  that  the  policy  of  free  trade,  in 
spite  of  the  moral  sublimity  now  claimed  for  it,  would  be  swiftly 
changed,  whether  the  Tory  or  the  Liberal  party  were  in  power. 
British  wealth,  however,  was  founded  upon  the  most  stubborn 
measures  of  protection  that  the  world  has  ever  known,  which  were 
only  discontinued  after  they  had  accomplished  their  chief  and 
greatest  work, — the  general  perfection  and  supremacy  of  their 
manufactures, — as  protection,  with  an  enterprising  people,  is  de- 
signed to  accomplish.  Protection  was  no  longer  needed,  but 
cheap  bread  and  cheap  wages  were  the  British  problem  to  be 
solved  by  free  trade. 

Great  Britain  formerly  not  only  exacted  heavy  protective 
duties  from  merchandise  imported  into  her  home  territories, 
but  she  pitilessly  monopolized  both  the  export  and  import  trade 
of  her  numerous  colonies, — drawing  sustenance  from  the  bosoms 
of  her  own  daughters, — from  which  the  fortunes  and  titles  of 
many  great  families  were  created  and  the  mercantile  power  of  the 
kingdom  established.  These  colonies  are  now  far  more  prosper- 
ous under  their  own  protective  policy,  but  the  mother-country 
continues  to  be  largely  their  creditor,  and  still  profits  by  a  large 
share  of  their  trade. 

After  nearly  400  years  of  the  most  unexampled  protection. 
Great  Britain  acquired  the  command  of  capital,  machinery,  steam 
power,  and  of  long-trained  labor,  including  even  that  of  children, 
by  which  to  compete  successfully  in  the  chief  markets  for  the 
trade  of  the  world.     Her  labor  during  the  long  season  of  protec- 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  117 

tion,  though  never  sinking  to  the  level  of  the  Continent,  had  long 
been  underpaid,  by  direct  act  of  Parliament  until  1813,  and  un- 
derpaid to  this  day  by  class  domination.  It  may  be  true  that  the 
wages  of  British  workmen  have  advanced  in  the  progress  of  the 
age  even  under  the  system  of  free  trade,  not  j)ost  hoc,  ergo  propter 
hoc,  but  because  their  best  workmen  have  had  a  whip  in  their 
own  hands,  and  for  $20  have  had  the  power  in  one  week  to 
transplant  themselves  to  America,  where  they  could  be  better 
fed,  better  clothed,  better  educated,  and  better  housed,  or  where, 
with  fewer  hours  of  labor,  they  could  add  from  50  to  100  per 
cent,  to  their  wages.  American  competition  has  thus  compelled 
an  increase  of  free-trade  wages,  which  must  be  conceded,  or  their 
best  men  would  desert  the  manufacturers,  and  the  latter,  it 
should  be  confessed,  do  not  seem  to  be  grateful  to  the  American 
promoters  of  such  good  works. 

It  follows  that  the  British  workmen  have  derived  and  still 
derive  an  immense  benefit  from  the  system  of  American  protec- 
tion. TVe  claim  no  merit  for  this  because  we  also  "  have 
legislated  for  our  own  benefit  and  are  satisfied  with  the 
benefits  we  have  received.**  The  number  of  British  im- 
migrants to  the  United  States,  for  the  year  ending  Decem- 
ber 31,  1888,  was  171,141,  more  being  from  England 
than  from  any  other  part  of  the  kingdom,  and  a  large  proportion 
being  mechanics  and  skilled  workmen.  This  does  not  include 
the  many  thousands  arriving  through  the  back  door  of 
Canada,  of  whom  no  account  is  made.  This  ceaseless  flow  of 
British  immigrants  supplies  a  multitude  of  potential  reasons  why 
wages  in  England  ''have  become  both  generally  and  absolutely 
higher,  and  greatly  higher,  under  free  trade.*'  Mr.  McKay  may 
not  have  been  entirely  accurate  as  to  the  wages  paid  in  Wigan, 
though  there  is  unlimited  proof  on  the  general  subject  of  the 
great  disparity  of  British  wages  when  compared  with  American  ; 
but  the  living  testimony  of  these  thousands  of  British  immi- 
grants is  an  incontestable  support  of  the  American  contention  of 
protection  against  all  theories. 

Workmen  in  Great  Britain,  when  out  of  employment,  are  said 
to  have  no  resource  but  the  workhouse,  but  American  workmen 
generally  own  their  own  houses,  take  their  own  newspapers,  and 
have  mone}'  in  savings-banks.  The  increase  in  wages  under  pro- 
tection enormously  increases  the  power  of  consumption  by  wage- 


118  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

earners  and  by  their  families,  while  free  trade  only  increases  th 
luxuries  of  the  rich,  and  the  common  people  find  them  beyom 
their  reach. 

Slavery  in  America,  not  caring  for  the  wages  of  labor,  Ion] 
wedded  many  Southern  States  to  free  trade,  but,  having  partei 
from  slavery,  they  are  now  fast  finding  reasons  for  a  divorce  f ron 
free  trade. 

Free  tmde  does  not  even  profess  regard  for  the  wages  of  arti 
sans,  and  is  based  wholly  on  the  idea  of  supplying  the  demands  o 
the  consumer  at  the  lowest  cost.  How  the  armies  which  delve  i: 
mines  and  work  in  mills  and  factories  are  fed  and  housed,  edu 
cated  and  paid,  does  not  concern  the  "  dismal  science  "  of  Free 
Traders — if  only  they  can  be  cheaply  paid.  They  start  in  the  rac 
by  challenging  the  competition  of  the  lowest-paid  laborers  of  a] 
the  world.  That  wages  under  free  trade,  in  such  a  race,  can  b 
equal  to  wages  under  protection  is  glaringly  preposterous. 

Mr.  Gladstone  asserts  that  "  in  your  protected  trades  profit 
are  hard  pressed  by  wages."  The  fair  inference  is — reversing  th 
proposition — that  profits  of  capital  are  not  hard  pressed  by  wage 
under  free  trade.  In  other  words,  wages  must  be  hard  pressed  b 
free  trade,  and  this  is  painfully  exhibited  by  the  present  abound 
ing  strikes  of  British  workmen. 

Mr.  Gladstone  gives  Mr.  Giffen  as  authority  on  British  wages 
and  claims  that  from  1833  to  1883  the  wages  paid  on  exportabl 
manufactures  of  Bradford  and  Huddersfield  have  advanced  2 
and  30  per  cent.  Why  go  back  so  far  when  the  complete  enjo\ 
ment  of  free  trade  is  only  claimed  for  less  than  thirty  years  ?  1 
would  possibly  be  more  fair  to  assume  that  much  of  the  advanc 
claimed  may  have  occurred  long  before  the  era  of  free  trade.  I 
America  we  go  back  no  further  than  1860  to  claim  an  advance  c 
more  than  double  the  amount  specified  in  the  wages  of  laborers 
both  in  factories  and  on  farms.  But,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  does  nc 
insist  that  wages  are  not  higher  in  America  under  protection  tha 
in  Great  Britain  under  free  trade,  it  would  seem  superfluous  t 
offer  statistical  proofs  of  the  wide  difference  known  to  exist,  an^ 
with  which  the  public  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  are  not  altc 
gether  unfamiliar.  One  fresh  illustration  of  the  difference,  hoir 
ever,  may  not  be  inopportune.  The  late  great  wage-strike  of  th 
London  dockmen  was  made  to  obtain  an  increase  of  one  penn 
per  hour, — 6d.  (12  cents),  instead  of  5d.  (10  cents),  per  hour,- 


fREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  119 

and  the  increase  of  one  penny  per  hour  has  been  reckoned  as  a 
crowning  victory.  But  the  'longshoremen,  employed  in  the  same 
kind  of  work  on  the  docks  of  New  York,  are  paid  30  cents  an 
hour  for  day,  and  40  cents  an  hour  for  night,  work.  Twelve  cents 
an  hour  was  stoutly  resisted  in  free-trade  London,  while  250-per 
cent,  higher  wages  still  prevail  under  protection  in  New  York. 

PKOTECTION    PUTS   THE   CHIEF   BUKDEN    ON   THE    FOREIGKER. 

Protectionists  claim,  as  Bismarck  claims,  that  protection  puts 
the  chief  burden  upon  the  foreigner,  who  is  compelled  to  pay  the 
duty  or  give  an  equivalent  by  reducing  the  price  of  his  products. 
They  also  claim  that,  in  the  long  run,  the  consumers  supply  their 
wants  at  less  cost  than  would  be  possible  without  protected  home 
competition.  For  example,  years  ago  moquette  carpets  brought  15 
to  $6  per  yard,  but  under  protection,  and  owing  to  a  loom  invented 
by  an  American,  they  are  now  sold  at  $1.50  per  yard  and  sometimes 
for  less.  Bessemer  steel  rails  in  1867  brought  $166  per  ton,  but 
with  a  protective  duty  the  price  in  1885  was  only  $28.50  per  ton, 
and  $27.50  in  1888.  From  1867  to  1888  there  were  made  in  the 
United  States  15,803,011  tons  of  steel  rails,  and  1,256,857  tons 
were  imported.  This  new  industry  gives  employment  to  many 
thousands  of  people,  and  presents  only  a  single  example  of  many 
showing  the  creation,  as  well  as  the  increase,  of  the  wage  fund  by 
protection.  American  railroads  unquestionably  obtained  their 
steel  rails  in  the  aggregate  at  far  less  cost  than  would  have  been 
possible  even  with  free  rails  and  dependence  upon  foreign  supply 
and  foreign  prices.  When  the  American  demand  in  1873 
exceeded  the  home  supply,  the  British  price  at  once  was  advanced 
from  230  shillings  per  ton  to  350  sliillings,  and  again  in  1880  the 
British  price  was  for  the  same  reason  advanced  from  170  shillings 
per  ton  to  200.  This  shows  how  merciless  would  be  the  greed  of 
foreigners  were  our  manufactures  suspended  for  lack  of  protection. 

HOME   MANUFACTURES  SAVE    MUCH  OF   THE  COST  OF  TRANSPORTA- 
TION   AND    DISTRIBUTION. 

Home  manufactures  planted  in  every  State  alongside  of  the 
farmer  largely  save  in  distribution  the  heavy  cost  and  waste  of 
long  transportation.  Foreign  merchandise  landed  at  some  sea- 
port must  be  distributed  at  great  expense  across  the  whole  coun- 
try, and  exports  of  grain  must  be  freighted  from  the  remotest 
interior  States  to  seaports  and  then  across  the  Atlantic.     Both  of 


120  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

these  outlays  are  either  wholly  avoided  or  greatly  reduced  by  tne 
presence  of  home  manufactures,  which  are  sold  (their  value  being 
well  known)  by  the  wholesale,  as  well  as  the  retail,  dealer  for  a 
much  smaller  commission  than  are  foreign  goods,  of  the  cost  and 
merit  of  which  the  public  are  ignorant. 

The  immediate  proximity  to  farmers  of  manufactures  is  an  ad- 
vantage so  great  that  the  holdings  of  farmers,  in  every  locality  of 
America  where  such  proximity  exists,  can  readily  be  sold  for 
more  than  50  per  cent,  above  the  price  of  land  where  manufactures 
have  not  been  established,  and  annually  yield  a  much  larger  income. 

Americans  prefer  to  make  a  home  market  for  all  of  their 
agricultural  products,  and  not  to  depend  upon  uncertain  and 
elusive  foreign  markets.  Every  ship-load  of  wheat  or  corn  ex- 
ported not  only  impoverishes  the  fertility  of  the  land  whence  it 
was  taken,  but  tends  to  reduce  both  the  price  abroad  and  at  home. 
Free  trade  in  America  would  cripple,  perhaps  ruin,  both  agricult- 
ure and  manufactures,  and  protection  is  accorded  to  both ;  for 
here  it  is  applied  to  both,  and  tends  not  only  to  shield  them  from 
harm,  but  has  operated  to  increase  the  wages  of  agricultural  labor 
equally  with  the  wages  of  employees  in  manufactures, — which 
shows  that  any  pretence  about  unprotected  labor  is  wholly  false 
and  intended  by  American  Free-Traders  only  to  deceive. 

We  have  no  class  legislation,  and  protection  protects  one-half 
of  the  population  no  more  than  the  other;  wool  as  well  as  clotli. 
All  of  our  people  are  now  free  to  labor  where  they  choose,  where 
they  can  earn  the  most  and  receive  the  highest  reward;  and  the 
man  who  to-day  works  on  the  farm  may  to-morrow,  if  he  pleases, 
find  employment  in  the  mine,  mill,  or  factory,  and  obtain  the 
customary  wages  awarded  to  like  skill  and  service. 

PROTECTION   PRODUCES  THE   BEST  WORK. 

Protection  turns  out  not  merely  good  work,  but  the  best. 
Local  competition  always  pushes  the  best  to  the  front.  American 
locomotives  are  received  in  Australia,  !N"ew  Zealand,  South  Amer- 
ica, and  elsewhere,  as  equal  to  any  in  the  world,  and  as  cheap. 
Some  British  manufacturers  and  traders  stamp  their  cotton  goods 
with  American  trade-marks  because  similar  American  goods, 
wherever  known,  fetch  the  highest  price.  House-furnii«hing  and 
saddlery  hardware,  locks,  joiners'  tools,  watches,  silverware,  jew- 
elry, paper  of  all  kinds,  and  many  other  articles  of  American 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  121 

manufacture  are  often  both  superior  to  and  cheaper  than  similar 
articles  produced  abroad.  Our  agricultural  implements  are  recog- 
nized everywhere  as  the  best  inventions  of  the  age.  American 
sewing-machines  and  carriages  easily  take  the  lead  of  foreign 
fashions  and  foreign  makes.  When  Mr.  Gladstone  presented  to 
his  forester  an  axe,  he  did  not  seek  for  one  of  English  make,  but 
found  the  best  and  presented  one  of  American  make. 

Mr.  Gladstone  declares  that  under  high  duties  they  had  the 
"worst corks  in  Europe."  This  was  deplorable,  but  if  they  had 
only  adopted  the  American  remedy  of  the  Maine  law,  they  would 
not  even  have  had 

"  To  stop  for  one  bad  cork  the  butler's  pay," 
as  the  demand  for  corks  would  suddenly  have  been  estopped.  On 
our  part,  it  is  remembered  that,  prior  to  the  development  of  home 
manufactures,  America  was  forced  to  accept  such  sorry  foreign 
goods  as  were  offered,  and  here  was  the  great  dumping-place  for 
inferior  and  Brummagem  articles,  which,  like  Pindar's  razors, 
were  "  made  only  to  sell."  Protection  has  brought  relief  from 
such  imposition 

Mr.  Gladstone  would  be  humorous,  and  endeavors  to  plunge 
the  advocates  of  protection  into  the  mire  of  a  reductio  ad  ahsur- 
dtim  by  saying  : 

"If  the  proper  object  for  the  legislator  Is  to  keep  and  employ  in  his  country  the  greatest 
possible  amount  of  capital,  then  the  British  Parliament  {exempli  gratia)  ou£bt  to 
protect  not  only  wheat,  but  pineapples." 

This  tropical  illustration,  though  dimmed  by  age  and  long  service, 
shows  that  Free-Traders  claim  not  only  a  monopoly  of  trade,  but 
of  common-sense.  The  pineapple  argument  may  be  dismissed  as 
too  far-fetched. 

But  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  fond  of  extremes  aud  pursues  the 
subject  by  adding  the  following : 

"If  protection  be,  as  its  champions  (or  victims)  hold,  in  itself  an  economical 
good,  then  it  holds  in  the  sphere  of  production  the  same  place  as  belongs  to  truth  in 
the  sphere  of  philosophy,  or  to  virtue  in  the  sphere  of  morals.  In  this  case,  you  can  • 
not  have  too  much  of  it;  so  that,  while  more  protection  it  economical  good  in  em- 
bryo, such  good  finds  its  full  development  only  in  the  prohibition  of  foreign  trade  " 

It  may  be  observed,  "  in  the  sphere  of  philosophy,"  that  in  the 
case  of  fire,  water,  and  air,  though  all  are  useful  servants,  no  one 
would  say  of  either,  "You  cannot  have  too  much  of  it."  The 
supporters  of  American  protection,  on  their  guard  against   all 


122  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

suicidal  extremes,  propose  to  reduce,  as  they  have  reduced  pro- 
tective legislation,  wherever  and  whenever  the  prosperity  of  their 
countrymen  requires  it,  and  are  in  no  danger  of  being  burned  or 
drowned  by  protection,  though  they  cannot  escape  an  occasional 
gust  of  free  trade  from  the  trade-winds  across  the  Atlantic. 

Evidently  Mr.  Gladstone  would  enforce  the  reverse  of  his 
proposition,  or  that  ''you  cannot  have  too  much  of"  free  trade  ; 
doubtless  feeling  that  other  nations  cannot  have  too  much  of  it 
to  suit  Great  Britain.  If  free  trade  is  one  of  the  moral  virtues, 
however,  as  seems  to  be  claimed,  is  it  not  rather  reckless,  ''  in  the 
sphere  of  morals,"  to  disregard  the  wisdom  of  classic  ages  handed 
down  by  the  axiom,  Iti  medio  tutissimus  ibis  ?  In  their  hard- 
pressed  corn,  iron,  cotton,  and  silk  industries,  are  there  not  many 
Englishmen  ready  to  say  of  free  trade,  "  Good  Lord,  deliver  us  I"? 

FREE  TRADE   AMONG  THE   STATES. 

Certainly  Mr.  Gladstone  has  a  fondness  for  the  logic  of  ex- 
treme cases,  and  he  asks,  in  relation  to  the  greater  profit  in  keep- 
ing labor  and  capital  at  home,  this  question  : 

"  But  if  this  really  is  so,  if  there  be  this  inborn  fertility  in  the  principle  itself,  why 
are  the  several  States  of  the  Union  precluded  from  applying  it  within  their  own  re- 
spective borders  ? " 

If  this  were  asked  with  the  expectation  of  serious  consideration, 
it  might  be  answered  that  local  tariffs  between  the  States  would 
not  only  be  inexpedient,  but  impossible  to  enforce,  and  they  are 
properly  superseded  by  the  far  better  protection  afforded  by  the 
general  government.  As  a  nation,  we  are  one  great  family,  or,  as 
he  calls  us,  "  a  world,  and  not  a  very  little  world,"  where  each 
one  of  the  members  contributes  to  the  general  welfare,  where  free 
trade  has  a  special  and  exceptional  domain  for  its  proper  develop- 
ment, and  where  its  results  are  beneficent.  As  dependencies  of 
Great  Britain,  we  were  annually  robbed  and  had  no  protection, 
and  therefore  declared  our  independence.  It  was  a  great  point 
through  the  union  then  established  to  escape  local  State  tariffs,  and 
aational  protection  was  secured  in  our  very  earliest  legislative  acts. 
It  may  not  be  impertinent  now  to  offer  aEoland  for  an  Oliver, 
and  to  inquire,  if  there  be  inborn  fertility  in  the  principle  of 
free  trade,  why  it  is  not  beneficently  applied  to  the  several  large 
»nd  populous  colonies  of  Great  Britain  by  the  omnipotence  of  the 


PREE  fRADM  OR  PROTECTION.  123 

British  Parliament.  Surely  a  measure  of  this  transcendent  im- 
portance, which  keeps  her  legislators  constantly  awake  looking 
with  anxious  pity  after  the  fiscal  and  moral  interests  of  the 
United  States,  should  not  permit  them  to  sleep  when  it  equally 
concerns  (to  borrow  Mr.  Gladstone's  phrases)  the  loaste,  robbery, 
and  imposition  that  are  so  rampant  in  British  colonies  and  de- 
pendencies— embracing  one-seventh  of  the  land  surface  of  the 
globe  and  nearly  one-fourth  of  its  population.  "  Why  beholdest 
thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not  the 
beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye  ?  "  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Gladstone 
should  have  been  unmindful  of  these  great  possessions — virgin 
fields  for  the  planting  of  unadulterated  free  trade — when  he 
penned  the  following  eloquent  sentence? — 

"Thera  opens  before  the  thinking  mind  when  this  supreme  question  is  propounded 
a  vista  so  transcending  all  ordinary  limitation  as  requires  an  almost  preterhuman 
force  and  expansion  of  the  mental  eye  in  order  to  embrace  it." 

America  won  the  battle  for  the  colonists  in  1776,  when  they 
were  not  suffered  by  Great  Britain  to  work  in  the  more  refined 
manufactures  even  for  their  own  consumption.  The  erection  of 
steel  furnaces  and  slitmills  in  any  of  her  American  plantations 
was  prohibited.  The  exportation  from  one  province  to  another 
by  water,  or  even  the  carriage  by  land  upon  horseback  or  in  a 
cart,  of  hats,  wool,  and  woollen  goods  of  the  produce  of  America, 
was  also  wholly  prohibited.     "We  have  changed  all  that. 

PRIMACY. 

Mr.  Gladstone  is  pleased  to  say 

"  that  in  international  transactions  the  British  nation  for  the  present  enjoys  a  com- 
mercial primacy;  that  no  country  in  the  world  shows  any  capacity  to  wrest  It  from 
us,  except  It  be  America;  that,  if  America  shall  frankly  adopt  and  steadily  maintain 
a  system  of  free  trade,  she  will  by  degrees,  perhaps  not  slow  degrees,  outstrip  us  in 
the  race,  and  will  probably  take  the  place  which  at  present  belongs  to  us;  but  that 
she  will  not  injure  us  by  the  operation." 

When  all  the  great  markets  of  the  world  are  drying  up  as  to  im- 
ports of  manufactures,  and  are  being  supplied  by  their  own  home 
products,  how  is  it  possible  that  the  United  States  would  not,  as 
a  rival,  injure  British  trade  by  coming  to  the  front  and  taking 
the  place  and  primacy  which  at  present  belong  to  Great  Britain  ? 
Their  government  is  making  ambitious  efforts  in  every  quarter  of 
the  globe  to  obtain  an  increase  of  its  foreign  trade,  and,  if  that 
is  now  diminishing,  or  insufficient  for  one,  how  can  it  be  enough 
for  two,  or  for  both  England  and  America  ? 


124  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Of  course  Mr.  Gladstone  is  sincere.  He  is  among  the  first,  if 
not  the  foremost,  of  loyal  Englishmen,  and  could  not  be  induced 
to  advocate  any  measure  that  would  not  benefit  his  own  country. 
He  sees  that  free  trade  with  America  would  offer  a  prodigious 
market  for  British  manufactures,  and  that  absorbing  advantage 
hides  everything  beyond.  But  it  will  not  be  forgotten  that  the 
leaders  of  Great  Britain,  he  proudly  eminent  among  them,*  not 
very  long  since  were  quite  willing  that  such  primacy  as  we  then 
alone  enjoyed  on  the  American  continent  should  be  nullified  and 
overthrown,  and  for  their  unlawful  aid  in  that  direction  made 
an  atonement  of  $15,000,000. 

But  Mr.  Gladstone  plainly  and  bluntly  builds  all  of  his  castles- 
in-the-air  relating  to  our  primacy  upon  our  producing  more  wheat, 
corn,  cotton,  and  mineral  oils  for  foreign  export,  and  says  that  we 
should  not  invest  "  in  mills  or  factories  to  produce  yarn  or  cloth 
which  we  could  obtain  more  cheaply  from  abroad."  It  follows 
that  he  would  have  the  primacy  wholly  restricted  to  agricultural 
exports,  and  is  oblivious  of  the  fact — while  his  own  country  fur- 
nishes a  very  limited  and  about  the  only  foreign  market — that  our 
present  exports  of  these  products  operate  adversely  upon  our 
agricultural  interests,  and  that  the  policy  of  American  protection 
is  vigorously  maintained  in  order  to  create  a  larger  body  of  con- 
sumers at  home  and  to  give  to  agriculture  higher  rewards.  Why 
should  not  America  have  its  own  home  market  ?  Surely  nature 
is  not  against  it,  morality  is  not  against  it,  and  if  free-trade 
science  is  against  it,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  science.  We  must 
make  the  market  we  do  not  and  cannot  elsewhere  find.  We  have 
found  that  often  less  has  been  obtained  for  a  very  large  export  of 
cotton  than  for  a  medium  or  smaller  one,  showing  that  an  excess- 
ive crop  pays  the  least  profit.  Some  of  our  Western  States  have 
also  found  the  largest  crop  of  corn  most  valuable  as  their  cheapest 
fuel,  and  the  wheat  crop  in  some  of  our  territories,  like  that  of  the 
apple  elsewhere,  when  very  large,  pays  little  more  than  for  the 
harvesting. 

Beyond  this,  Russia,  Egypt,  India,  and  other  countries  leave 
us  to  supply  only  a  pitiful  share  of  any  deficiency  of  European 

*  Mr.  Gladstone  was  a  Southern  sympathizer,  and  in  the  Roebnck  debate  on  the 
recognition  r/ the  Southern  Confederacy  said  :  "It  is  not,  therefore,  from  indiffer- 
ence—it is  not  any  adequate  or  worthy  object  on  the  part  of  the  North— that  I  would 
venture  to  deprecate  in  the  strongest  terms  the  adoption  of  the  motion  of  the  honor- 
able and  learned  gentleman." 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  125 

food  crops,  and  that  at  the  minimum  prices.  South  America, 
and  our  great  American  desert,  improved  by  irrigation,  may  also 
soon  prove  the  marvels  of  che  age  in  the  production  of  food  crops. 
An  increase  of  the  supply  from  any  quarter  would  instantly  de- 
press foreign  prices,  leaving  for  American  exports  losses  instead 
of  profits ;  and  our  farming  interests,  with  increased  crops  and 
without  an  increase  of  consumers,  would  sink  to  the  level  of  those 
now  so  greatly  depressed  in  Great  Britain.  Again,  if,  as  sug- 
gested, we  were  no  longer  to  protect  and  support  home  manu- 
factures, or  investments  in  '*  mills  and  factories,"  but  put  our 
home  market  of  95  per  cent,  in  limbo,  or  the  paradise  of  fools,  in 
order  to  increase  the  5  per  cent,  (not  including  cotton)  which  we 
occasionally  have  of  such  exports,  how  long  would  it  be  before 
the  prices  of  the  products  of  foreign  ''  mills  and  factories  "  would 
mount  far  above  the  present  current  rates  in  America  ?  Our 
manufactures,  outside  of  household  industries,  amounted  in  1880 
to  $5,369,579,191,  and  it  is  estimated  will  reach  $7,000,000,000  in 
1890.  Were  we  to  surrender  this  unmatched  field  to  free  trade, 
the  immense  capital  invested  must  be  largely  sacrificed,  and  thou- 
sands of  laborers  turned  adrift,  *'the  world  all  before  them  where 
to  choose."     Europeans,  with  their 

"discontent 
Made  glorious  stuniuer," 

would  rush  to  fill  the  void  with  their  products,  upon  their  own 
terms,  and  for  them  a  new  world  would  have  been  discovered  by 
free  trade. 

Purchasers  of  home  products  are  sure  to  retain  capital  for  the 
wage  fund  of  laborers  in  their  own  country  and  keep  it  in  circu- 
lation; but  when  purchases  are  made  abroad,  the  capital  goes  to  a 
bourn  whence  it  never  returns. 

The  increment  of  capital  employed  in  British  manufactures  is 
apparently  becoming  unsatisfactory  and  doubtful.  If  this  were 
not  so,  why  are  there  so  many  millions  of  British  capital  at  the 
present  moment  fleeing  from  their  free-trade  home  and  running 
to  and  fro  in  America  as  supplicants  for  any  random  employment? 
Evidently  the  wage  fund  for  English  workmen  would  appear  to 
be  unstable  and  on  the  wing. 

As  to  the  charge  of  waste  in  practical  protection,  it  would  be 
equally  just  to  charge  the  blessings  of  the  falling  rain  and  the 
heat  of  the  summer  sun  witli  undue  waste.     It  will  be  sufficient 


126  BOTS  SIDES  OF  TitE  TARIFF  QUESTIOI^ 

for  an  Amerioan  to  point  to  the  fact  that  the  United  States  srnoe 
1860,  notwithstanding  the  boundless  losses  of  both  North  and 
South  in  the  late  war,  has  much  more  than  doubled  its  wealth  and 
population,  and  since  1865  has  reduced  its  public  debt  by  the 
large  sum  of  11,693,436,676,  so  that  our  yearly  interest  charge  jt?«r 
capita  was  in  1888  only  63  cents,  while  that  of  Great  Britain  was 
$3.75  jser  capita,  or  nearly  six  times  as  much.  When  any  equal 
prosperity  shall  be  visible  among  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  it 
may  be  proper  to  meditate  on  the  felicities  of  free  trade.  In  this 
debt-paying  race  for  the  primacy,  the  British  are  just  now  only 
in  sight,  and  Americans  are  not  hard  pressed  by  any  rivals. 

Free  trade  miserably  fails  to  offer  remunerative  employment 
or  any  vitality  to  the  forces  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  and 
the  waste  of  latent  power  is  enormous.  The  division  of  the 
British  population  according  to  occupation,  as  set  forth  in  their 
own  statistical  publications  of  1889,  was  : 

Afrricultural  and  industrial 10,818,206 

Indefinite,  unoccupied,  and  non-productive 19,703,745 

Is  not  free  trade  responsible  for  this  extraordinary  excess  of  the 
non-productive  population?  These  plethoric  millions  of  mere 
drones  surely  cannot  all  be  justly  charged  to  the  aristocracy. 

THE  HINDER  PARTS  OF  BRITISH  FREE  TRADE. 

It  will  be  proper  to  inquire,  What  is  the  practical  system  of 
British  free  trade,  which  Americans  are  so  urgently  pressed  by 
British  statesmen,  and  by  others  who  are  not  statesmen,  to  adopt? 
It  may  have  worked  well  or  ill  for  Great  Britain  ;  but  what  is 
there  about  it  that  should  lead  Americans  to  renounce  the  legis- 
lative precedents  and  the  wisdom  of  their  fathers,  and  to  abandon 
the  highway  of  their  past  and  present  matchless  prosperity  in 
order  to  follow  a  later-born  experiment  of  our  foremost  rival  in 
commerce  and  manufactures?  *'Ifear  the  Greeks  even  when 
they  bring  gifts." 

To  answer  the  question,  we  are  limited  to  a  survey  of  the  sol- 
itary British  example,  for  n'-  other  nation  treats  free  trade  as  any- 
thing better  than  a  delusion  and  a  snare.  Free  trade  opens  in 
Great  Britain  by  levying  a  tariff  duty  on  imported  manufactured 
tobacco  of  84  cents  to  92  cents  per  pound  ;  on  unmanufactured 
tobacco,  104  to  116  cents  per  pound  ;  on  cigars,  $1.32  per  pound; 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  127 

on  tea,  12  cents  per  pound ;  on  coffee,  3  cents  per  pound — if 
ground  or  prepared,  4  cents  per  pound  ;  on  cocoa,  raw,  2  cents 
per  pound — if  manufactured,  4  cents  per  pound.  Among  other 
items  subject  to  duty  are  currants,  figs,  raisins,  plums,  prunes, 
soap,  pickles,  varnish,  wine,  gin,  and  all  other  spirits.  These 
duties,  it  will  be  observed,  bear  heavily  upon  laboring  people,  who 
consume  not  less  than  90  per  cent,  of  the  articles  from  which  the 
largest  part  of  British  tariff  revenue  is  obtained.  The  so-called 
revenue  duty  on  tobacco,  supplied  from  America,  amounts  to  at 
least  1,500  per  cent.  The  duty  on  tea  and  coffee  is  the  same 
upon  the  lowest  grade  as  upon  the  highest  and  choicest  varieties. 
The  free-trade  idea  is  to  place  duties  on  articles  not  produced  at 
home,  instead  of  on  such  as  are  or  ought  to  be  produced  there, 
and  is  the  reverse  of  the  American  idea. 

Bat  this  model  free-trade  tariff  failed  to  yield  (in  1888)  more 
than  $98,150,000  of  revenue,  being  only  a  little  more  than  one- 
quarter  part  of  the  sum  ($378,300,000)  required  for  the  ordinary 
support  of  the  British  Government,  and  our  British  friends  are 
compelled  annually  to  exhaust  all  the  resources  of  extreme  taxa- 
tion to  cover  the  enormous  deficiency  of  thrice  as  much  more. 

This  dismal  but  inexorable  sequence  of  the  free-trade  system 
has  been  in  America  studiously  kept  out  of  sight,  where  it  forever 
should  be,  except  in  the  emergency  of  a  great  war,  and  it  will  be 
enough  now  to  catalogue  its  many  sore  titles.  Supplemental  to 
British  free  trade,  and  inseparable  from  it,  will  be  found  the  fol- 
lowing :  A  land  and  house  tax,  paid  by  occupiers  as  well  as  by 
owners  ;  a  tax  on  legacies  and  successions  ;  a  stamp  tax  on  bills 
of  exchange,  receipts,  and  patents  ;  a  tax  on  carriages,  horses, 
man-servants,  guns,  and  dogs  ;  an  excise  on  gin  and  all  other 
spirits;  and  a  tax  on  incomes.  The  woes  of  our  rebellion  gave  us 
all  the  experience  in  this  sad  line  of  taxation  we  shall  ever  covet. 
Only  a  nation  struggling  to  preserve  its  existence,  or  to  protect  its 
people  from  famine  and  sudden  death,  would  be  willing  to  toler- 
ate so  many  Briarean  arms  clutching  at  the  pockets  of  the  people. 

This  onerous  system  of  taxation  is  made  necessary  by  free 
trade,  and  by  the  ponderous  British  public  debt.  The  public 
debt  of  the  United  States,  less  cash  in  the  treasury,  is  $1,063,- 
004,894,  while  in  1888  the  debt  of  Great  Britain,  with  about 
half  as  much  population,  was  £705,575,073,  or  13,527,875,366— 
almost  three  and  a  half  times  that  of  the  United  States. 


128  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Revenue  for  the  support  of  government  must  be  had,  but  th« 
British  system  presents  its  revolutionary  odium,  and  Americans 
have  lost  nothing  of  their  ancient  repugnance  for  stamp  and  ex- 
cise taxes.  The  United  States,  however,  is  paying  off  its  public 
debt  upon  the  canter,  and  raises  its  revenue  by  duties  on  imports, 
scarcely  felt  by  taxpayers,  but  which  are  a  great  encouragement 
to  home  industries,  and  so  levied  that  the  foreign  producer  must 
pay  for  his  entrance  to  our  market.  Pedlers  are  made  to  pay  a 
license  to  sell  their  "  truck''  by  each  and  every  State  ;  and  why 
should  not  the  foreigner,  exempt  from  all  local  taxes,  who  seeks 
to  sell  his  products  not  merely  in  one  State,  but  throughout  the 
whole  Union,  be  required  to  pay  for  the  privilege  ? 

Great  Britain  has  an  annual  deficiency  of  food  products,  and 
it  seems  necessary  to  obtain  a  foreign  supply  for  more  than  one- 
half  of  her  people.  Without  the  command  of  the  sea  for  trans- 
portation this  supply  might  be  cut  off  ;  and,  to  obtain  means  of 
purchasing  it,  it  is  also  necessary  to  export  manufactures  and 
undersell  all  competitors  in  foreign  markets,  or  her  people  must 
go  without  their  daily  food. 

Free  trade  appeared  to  flourish  until  it  encountered  too  many 
protective  tariffs  of  other  nations,  now  universal,  and  unlikely  to 
be  abolished.  They  are  Gibraltars  that  everywhere  frown  upon 
those  who  are  plotting  to  supersede  and  destroy  the  home  indus- 
tries of  other  people.  British  Free-Traders  have  found  it  hard 
to  kick  against  such  pricks,  and  now  beg  the  help  of  America. 

"  No  other  country,"  Mr.  Gladstone  says  of  America,  "  has 
the  same  free  choice  of  industrial  pursuits,  the  same  option  to 
lay  hold  not  on  the  good  merely,  but  on  the  best."  And  yet  this 
free  choice,  which  gives  to  our  people  the  control  of  all  their 
natural  forces,  he  would  now  limit,  and  give  no  option  of  mills 
and  factories.  America  does  not  thrust  its  industrial  theories 
upon  Great  Britain,  and  will  be  happy  whether  protection  or  free 
trade  shall  prevail  there.  The  large  subsidies  that  are  paid  to 
British  ships  for  carrying  foreign  mails  far  transcend  what  that 
service  might  be  obtained  for  if  free  trade  were  allowed  with 
foreign  competitors,  and  the  annual  sums  also  paid  to  large  and 
fast-going  steamers,  to  be  utilized  first  for  trade  and  second  for 
war  purposes  when  needed,  furnish  examples  in  the  highest  fields 
of  protection  ;  and  we  only  lament  and  criticise  our  own  short- 
comings in  the  same  service. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  129 

MORE   CHAPTERS   OF   GLORY   THAN   OF   SHAME. 

Notwithstanding  our  ancient  family  difficulties.  Great  Britain 
must  be  credited  with  more  chapters  of  glory  than  of  shame,  and 
America  is  now  more  firmly  and  tenderly  attached  to  her  people 
than  to  those  of  any  other  nation,  and  should  be  claimed  as  their 
best  and  most  powerful  friend,  more  especially  since  Great  Britain 
seems  to  be  step  by  step  Americanized  by  the  extension  of  the 
right  of  suffrage.  Still  we  are  now  asked,  in  substance,  to  plod 
contentedly  with  hand  labor,  to  raise  corn  and  pasture  herds,  to 
dismiss  our  artisans,  and  forego  machinery  and  all  the  forces  of 
steam-engines,  without  which  no  nation,  either  in  peace  or  war, 
can  hope  to  be  great  or  even  independent.  The  selfishness  of 
those  who  merely  seek  an  extension  of  British  trade  may  ask  for 
this,  but  not  those  who  more  prize  American  power  and  American 
fraternity.  In  Europe,  Great  Britain,  if  not  misrepresented,  has 
no-allies,  and,  among  all  first-class  powers,  not  one  earnest  friend. 
Would  it  not  be  a  blunder  for  even  British  Free-Traders  to  pro- 
mote our  acceptance  of  a  policy  that  would  be  sure  to  reduce  the 
United  States  to  the  rank  of  a  second-rate  power  ? 

Mr.  Gladstone  bestows  lofty  praise  upon  the  unrivalled  strength 
of  our  country  by  an  eloquent  recital  of  the  American  advan- 
tages over  all  nations,  of  our  immense  territory  where  there  is 
nothing  that  the  soil  would  refuse  to  yield,  the  rare  excellence  of 
the  climate,  the  vast  extent  of  coal  and  other  mineral  resources, 
the  inventive  faculty  of  the  people  surpassing  all  the  world,  and 
sums  up  as  follows  : 

"  I  suppose  there  la  no  other  country  of  the  whole  earth  In  which.  If  we  combine  to- 
gether the  surface  and  that  which  la  below  the  surface,  Nature  has  been  so  bountiful 
to  n»an .  The  mineral  resources  of  our  Britannic  Isle  have,  without  question,  prinoi 
pally  contributed  to  its  commercial  pre"minence.  But  when  we  match  them  wit) 
those  of  America,  it  is  Lilliput  against  Brobdlngnag." 

Yet  in  the  face  of  all  this,  with  a  continent  instead  of  an  island, 
with  twice  the  population  of  Great  Britain,  and  with  more  of  the 
natural  aptitudes  for  the  widest  fields  of  manufactures  than  car 
be  claimed  even  for  the  people  from  whom  we  sprang,  Mr.  Glad- 
stone would  place  "  the  most  inventive  nation  in  the  world"  in 
subservience  to  British  free  trade,  and  confine  the  American  peo- 
ple to  the  production  of  cotton,  corn,  meats,  and  mineral  oils, 
and  have  them  abandon  more  millions  of  manufactures  than  are 
annually  produced  by  Great  Britain  herself,  and  sink  all  ambition" 


130  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

for  tho  protection  of  any  products  "we  could  obtain  more 
cheaply  from  abroad."  The  anti-climax  of  the  argument  is  rather 
conspicuous,  and  the  American  people  will  be  in  no  mood  to  trail 
with  a  "broken  wing"  their  ambition  in  the  dust,  and  will  sur- 
render neither  their  manhood  nor  the  bountiful  gifts  of  nature. 

MOBAL  ASPECTS   OF   FREE  TRADE. 

After  all  the  economical  arguments  against  protection  appear 
to  have  been  concluded,  but  not  without  some  misgivings  as  to 
their  efficiency,  Mr.  Gladstone  summons  to  his  aid  for  the  final 
assault  all  the  terrors  of  denunciation.  He  cannot  finish  what 
he  calls  his  "  indictment  against  protection"  until  he  has  anathe- 
matized it  as  "  morally  as  well  as  economically  bad" — not  that 
all  Protectionists  are  bad,  but  that  the  system  tends  to  harden  all 
"  into  positive  selfishness."  This  is  an  indictment  with  which 
all  nations  are  graciously  covered  except  the  British,  and  the 
British  may  stand  up  and  thank  God  that  they  "  are  not  as  other 
men  are,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as  this  publi- 
can." The  world,  however,  will  be  slow  to  believe  that  free 
trade  was  adopted,  or  is  now  upheld,  for  any  other  reason  than 
its  supposed  advantages,  not  to  moral,  but  to  British  material 
and  trading,  interests.  If  any  nation  has  exhibited  more  of 
purely  financial  selfishness  than  embroiders  the  history  of  some 
British  administrations,  it  has  not  been  recorded.  This  part 
of  the  indictment  against  protection  is  as  gratuitous  as  it  would 
be  to  say  that  not  all  Free-Traders  are  liars,  but  the  system  tends 
to  harden  all  into  positive  falsification.  Though  we  might  highly 
appreciate  the  good  opinion  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  he  leaves  us  in 
no  doubt  that  it  cannot  be  won  unless  we  "frankly  adopt  and  stead- 
ily maintain  a  system  of  free  trade."  We  must,  however,  frankly 
and  steadily  maintain  that  the  terms  are  too  exorbitant. 

In  his  pathetic  exhortation  to  Americans  on  the  selfishness  and 
moral  aspects  of  the  question,  urging  Protectionists  to  be  good  as 
well  as  great,  Mr.  Gladstone  forgets  that  he  and  his  countrymen 
are  not  entirely  without  sin,  and  may  not,  therefore,  cast  the  first 
stone  across  the  Atlantic  even  to  hit  Americans.  But  others  have 
not  forgotten  that  free  trade  was  begotten  by  greed  for  the  trade 
of  the  world,  that  it  was  the  British  war  power  which  forced,  and 
continues  to  force,  the  opium  trade  upon  China,  by  which  the 
Indian  government  obtains  an  annual  income  of  near  forty  million 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  131 

dollars;  that  the  religion  of  Great  Britain,  politically  established, 
may  have  something  too  much  of  perfunctory  support  through 
the  union  of  church  and  state;  that  its  laws  of  primogeniture 
were  ordained  to  make  the  first-born  rich  and  all  the  re?t  of  the 
family  poor;  and  that  the  soil  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  in  fewer 
hands  than  that  of  any  other  country  in  Europe. 

To  refute  the  charge  against  protection  of  a  tendency  to  selfish- 
ness and  lack  of  morality,  American  Protectionists  may,  with 
more  pleasure  than  is  afforded  by  showing  that  Free-Traders 
occupy  a  glass  house,  turn  the  light  on  all  their  past  history,  and 
offer  the  evidence  of  the  equality  of  their  laws  and  citizenship, 
the  uprooting  of  the  inherited  laws  of  primogeniture,  the  uni- 
versal education  through  common  schools,  the  liberal  and  spon- 
taneous support  of  Christian  churches,  the  extinction  of  human 
slavery  originally  planted  by  the  mother-country,  the  free  home- 
steads to  the  landless,  the  disbandment  of  our  vast  armies  at  the 
close  of  the  late  war,  and  their  prompt  return  to  the  peaceful  pur- 
suits of  life,  the  national  magnanimity  exhibited  after  victory 
over  rebellion,  the  payment  of  our  public  debt  even  before  it  is 
due,  the  liberal  pensions  to  those  who  have  suffered  in  patriotic 
service  (perhaps  annually  exceeding  for  like  services  all  British 
appropriations  for  the  last  century),  the  higher  dignity  and 
respect  accorded  to  women,  the  paternal  care  of  the  poor,  as  well 
as  of  the  insane,  the  blind,  and  deaf-mutes,  and  the  general 
absence  of  all  beggars. 

We  appeal  finally  from  Mr.  Gladstone  to  Mr.  James  Bryce, 
the  author  of  "  The  American  Commonwealth,"  whose  work  has 
already  placed  him  in  the  rank  of  Gibbon,  Motley,  and  de  Tocque- 
ville.  Unlike  Mr.  Gladstone, — except  that  he  is  also  a  member  of 
the  British  Parliament, — he  is  not  a  partisan,  and  has  devoted 
years  to  the  study  of  the  United  States  and  its  people,  visiting 
every  State  of  the  Union  for  the  sole  purpose  of  impartiality  and 
historic  veracity.  That  Mr.  Bryce  is  competent  authority  on  ques- 
tions of  the  morals  and  selfishness  of  Americans,  none  will  dis- 
pute. Setting  forth  American  characteristics,  he  says : 

"They  are  a  moral  and  well-conducted  people." 

"The  average  of  temi)erance,  chastity,  truthfulness,  and  general  probity  is  some- 
what higher  than  in  any  of  the  great  nations  of  Europe." 

"Nowhere  are  so  many  philanthropic  and  reformatory  agencies  at  work." 
(Volume  IT.,  pa-rrca  247  and  248.) 

"  In  works  of  active  beneficence  no  country  has  surpassed,  perhaps  none  has 
equalled,  the  I  nitcd  Statcn^" 
0 


132  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Mr.  Bryce  concludes  his  great  work  in  the  following  pregnant 
words : 

"  America  has  still  a  long  rlsta  of  years  stretching  before  her  in  which  she  will 
VDJoj  conditions  more  auspicious  than  England  can  count  upon.  And  that  America 
marks  the  highest  level,  not  only  of  material  well-being,  but  of  intelligence  and 
happiness,  which  the  race  has  yet  attained,  will  be  the  judgment  of  those  who  look 
not  at  the  farored  few  for  whose  benefit  the  wdrld  seems  hitherto  to  have  framed 
Its  institutione,  cut  tt  the  whole  body  of  the  people." 

Justin  S.  Moebill. 


FREE    TRADE    OR    PROTECTION. 
By  the  Hon.  W.  C.  P.  Breckinridge. 


Hon.  W.  C.  P.  Breckinridge. 


Few  names  rank  higher  in  the  history  of  Kentucky  than  that  of 
Breckinridge,  WTiether  administering  justice  from  tlie  bench  of  a  court 
of  law,  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  some  knotty  rehgious  problem  from 
the  rostrum  of  a  churcii,  wielding  the  sword  on  the  battlefield,  or  the  pen 
—  that  mightier  weapon — in  an  editor's  chair,  the  family.shine  as  illustri- 
ous examples  in  all  walks  of  life,  and  are  justly  entitled  to  the  honors 
that  have  been  heaped  upon  them  by  their  native  State. 

"William  Campbell  Preston  Breckinridge,  one  of  this  noted  race, 
although  his  life  has  been  almost  wholly  passed  in  the  Blue  Grass  sec- 
tion, was  born  on  August  28,  1837,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  Maryland. 
He  was  the  son  of  the  Rev,  Robert  Jefferson  Breckinridge,  a  divine 
of  most  excellent  attainments,  deeply  read  in  the  science  of  law  and 
theology,  an  eminent  author,  and  a  patriotic  citizen. 

An  ardent  student,  young  Breckinridge  applied  himself  to  his  books 
with  such  zeal  that  at  the  age  of  eighteen  he  graduated  from  Centre  Col- 
lege, Danville,  Kentucky. 

Intensely  Southern  in  feeling,  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  State 
rights,  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  he  espoused,  most  naturally,  the 
Confederate  cause.  Entering  the  army  in  18Ci  as  a  captain,  he  passed 
through  the  various  hardships  of  a  soldier's  life,  becoming,  later  on,  the 
colonel  of  the  Ninth  Kentucky  Cavalry,  a  corps  of  men  whose  skill  and 
daring  were  known  alike  to  friend  and  foe.  As  their  leader  Colonel 
Breckinridge  attained  an  enviable  prestige,  and  when,  succumbing  to  an 
overwhelming  superiority  of  numbers,  the  band  surrendered  to  the  Union 
army  and  so  passed  out  of  existence,  its  officers  and  men  left  a  brilliant 
record  of  valor  and  honorable  conduct. 

The  war  finished,  for  two  years  Col,  Breckinridge  occupied  himself 
with  journalistic  labor,  relinquishing  this  to  aasume  the  chair  of  professor 
of  equity -jurisprudence  in  the  Univei-sity  of  Cumberland,  Tenn,,  a  posi- 
tion filled  by  him  with  much  ability. 

Yielding  to  the  urgent  and  oft-repeated  solicitations  of  his  countless 
friends,  he  became,  in  1884,  a  candidate  for  congressional  honors.  He  was 
elected  without  the  slightest  opposition,  and  at  once  entered  upon  the 
discharge  of  his  duties.  His  career  in  the  House  has  been  one  reflecting 
credit  ujkju  himself  and  upon  his  party.  Thoroughly  imbued  with  Demo- 
cratic spirit,  and  ready  at  all  times  to  do  battle  for  the  doctrine  of  free- 


136  SON.  W.  C.  P.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

trade,  he  has  gathered  about  him  a  coterie  whose  principles  accord  wit 
his  own.  Keen  and  energetic,  in  the  very  prime  of  life,  he  is  doubtle: 
destined  to  achieve  a  more  than  brilliant  success. 

Mr,  Breckinridge  makes  his  home  in  the  beautiful  city  of  Lexingtoi 
Kentucky,  where  he  is  a  member  of  a  leading  firm  of  lawyers.  Sociall 
he  is  a  great  favorite,  possessing  a  most  pleasing  mode  of  address,  an 
winning  all  hearts  by  his  gentle  courteous  ways.  His  temporary  res 
dence  in  Washington  is  an  agreeable  one,  situated  not  far  from  tli 
capitol,  and  on  one  of  the  most  pleasant  streets  of  that  '*  city  of  magnif 
cent  distances.'"  An  hospitable  entertainer,  he  is  to  be  counted  as  happ; 
who,  in  friendship's  name,  can  claim  an  entrance  to  that  genial  abode. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION 

BY    THE   HON".    WILLIAM   C.    P.   BRECKINRIDGE,  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS   FROM   KENTUCKY. 


The  very  existence  of  government  necessitates  the  sovereign 
power  of  taxation.  It  is  impossible  to  maintain  public  order, 
defend  the  liberties  of  the  citizen,  insure  tranquillity,  and  execute 
the  purposes  for  which  governments  are  formed,  except  by  the 
expenditure  of  revenues,  which  cannot  be  obtained  in  any  other 
mode  than  by  taxation.  It  is  the  sovereign  power.  By  it  the  gov- 
ernment assumes  the  right  and  exercises  the  power  to  take  from 
the  citizen  so  much  of  his  earnings  as  may  be  necessary  for  its 
support,  before  permitting  him  to  expend  these  earnings  for  the 
support  of  himself  and  the  family  dependent  upon  him.  It  has, 
therefore,  been  universally  agreed  that  the  government  ought  to 
absolutely  need  the  money  thus  obtained  by  taxation  before  it 
resorts  to  the  exercise  of  such  a  power,  and  that  the  limitation 
upon  its  exactions  should  be  its  necessities.  In  a  free  government, 
where,  under  the  law,  there  are  no  classes,  where  every  one  is  enti- 
tled to  equal  protection,  the  burdens  of  taxation  should  be  equally 
and  impartially  imposed.  So  far  as  it  may  be  possible,  every  man 
should  be  required — as  every  citizen  ought  to  be  willing — to  pay 
his  fair  proportion  of  the  expenses  of  the  government,  which  is 
based  in  part  upon  his  consent,  which  was  formed  for  his  protec- 
tion, and  by  means  of  which  he  is  secured  in  the  enjoyment  of 
his  property  and  in  the  protection  of  his  liberty  and  life  ;  but  he 
ought  not  to  be  required  to  pay  one  cent  more  than  that  fair  and 
just  proportion ;  so  that  in  the  very  nature  of  our  institutions, 
and  by  the  very  limitations  created  by  the  formation  of  them,  we 
find  these  fundamental  principles  of  taxation  :  the  amount  raised 
ought  to  be  limited  by  the  necessities  of  the  government;  and 
the  distribution  of  the  burdens  ought  to  be  impartial  and  equal. 
The  adoption  of  a  system  of  "  raising  revenue  "  by  means  of 


138  BOTIt  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION, 

a  tariff  is  one  of  the  modes  by  which  the  United  States  exercises 
the  power  of  taxation  and  obtains  its  necessary  revenues. 
Primarily,  this  power  is  wholly  a  taxing  power.  Primarily,  its 
object  is  to  raise  revenue.  Its  purpose  is  to  obtain,  by  the  im- 
position of  imposts  upon  imports,  such  proportion  of  the  Federal 
revenue  as  wise  statesmanship  may  determine.  There  is  no  dis- 
pute that  it  has  this  power.  The  contention  begins  when  it  is 
claimed  that  incidental  to  this  taxing  power  it  has  the  right — 
indeed,  has  imposed  upon  it  the  duty — to  so  impose  these  imposts 
as  to  give  "  protection  to  domestic  productions."  Very  latterly 
it  has  been  made  the  platform  of  the  party  in  possession  of  all  the 
departments  of  the  Federal  Government  that  this  duty  is  the 
primary  and  important  duty  under  the  taxing  power  ;  that  the 
old  conception  of  Hamilton,  Clay,  and  others,  of  a  tariff  for 
revenue  with  incidental  protection,  must  be  considered  as 
obsolete,  and  must  give  way  to  the  new  theory  of  a  tariff  for  pro- 
tection with  incidental  revenue.  For  this  generation,  so  long  as 
the  constitutional  mandate  that  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned 
among  the  States  in  proportion  to  population  remains  unchanged, 
the  larger  part  of  our  revenues  must  be  raised  by  imposts  on  im- 
ports. Practically  the  present  generation  of  statesmen  will  never 
meet  the  question  of  free  trade.  "Whatever  views  may  be  enter- 
tained by  those  in  public  life  or  by  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
it  cannot  be  that  in  our  day  free  trade,  even  in  the  limited  sense 
in  which  Great  Britain  has  adopted  it,  can  be  made  the  system  of 
imports  in  the  United  States  ;  so  that  the  true  question  which  at 
present  divides  the  parties  and  the  practical  statesmen  of  the  day 
is  :  Shall  the  principle  upon  which  imposts  are  laid  be  for  pro- 
tection primarily  or  for  revenue  primarily  ? 

It  is  freely  admitted  that  there  are  evils  which  are  common  to 
any  system  of  taxation  by  tariff;  that  there  are  bad  results  which 
must  follow  from  the  imposition  of  duties  upon  imports;  and  it  is 
also  freely  admitted  that  it  is  impossible  to  "raise  the  revenues" 
required  by  the  United  States  under  a  system  of  tariff  imposition 
without  incidental  protection  to  certain  industries.  All  taxes  are 
burdens  that  cannot  be  laid  and  collected  without  some  injury  or 
without  some  compensatory  advantages.  The  amount  necessary 
cannot  be  withdrawn  from  the  earnings  of  labor  without  injury  to 
some  persons  and  possibly  to  some  classes;  nor  yet  without  some 
incidental  advantages  to  competing  industries  and  rival  interests. 


pREE  fRADE  OA  PROTECTION.  1§9 

It  is,  therefore,  only  a  question  of  what  is  best  as  practical  states- 
manship; and  yet  the  systems  are  based  upon  principles  which, 
if  not  antipodal,  are  very  diverse. 

Legislation  for  protection  is  based"  upon  the  fundamental 
principle  that  the  government  has  the  right  in  some  manner  to 
take,  without  direct  compensation,  from  one  man  or  class  of  men 
part  of  his  or  their  earnings  and  by  law  bestow  it  upon  another 
man  or  class  of  men.  It  is  precisely  the  basal  principle  of  slavery. 
Slavery  took  by  law  all  of  a  man's  labor,  returning  only  a  liveli- 
hood measured  by  the  humanity,  the  self-interest,  and  the  will  of 
the  master.  The  protective  tariff  takes  by  law  so  much  of  a  man's 
labor  as  is  necessary  to  pay  the  difference  caused  by  that  tariff  in 
the  cost  of  necessary  articles.  It  is  an  inheritance  from  our 
remote  ancestors  of  the  conception  they  had  of  government,  which 
was  that  by  divine  right  rulers  reigned,  and  that  the  power  exer- 
cised by  society  organized  into  governments  was  broad  enough  to 
create  class  distinctions,  and  that  this  was  its  best  hope  for  sta- 
bility and  its  only  mode  of  preserving  public  order. 

Hence  it  is  not  strange,  in  any  country  where  there  have  been 
monarchical  institutions  and  aristocratic  distinctions,  that  the 
system  which  is  designed  to  benefit  favored  classes  should  be 
readily  accepted  and  perpetually  maintained.  It  would  be  almost 
inexplicable  if  this  were  not  so.  It  is  only  when  the  spirit  of 
freedom  thoroughly  pervades  the  institutions  of  the  country,  and 
dominates  its  legislation,  that  this  principle  is  eliminated  from 
practical  legislation.  Consequently  it  is  not  remarkable  that,  after 
centuries  of  struggles  for  parliamentary  and  personal  liberty,  for 
judicial  independence  and  constitutional  government.  Great  Brit- 
ain should  enter  upon  a  career  of  economic  freedom  ;  but  it  is 
almost  beyond  explanation  that  in  the  United  States,  within  thirty 
years,  it  should  be  accepted  as  a  postulate  of  free  government 
that  the  true  prosperity  of  the  country  is  based  on  inequalities 
made  by  law  and  on  distinctions  created  by  legislation. 

From  the  days  of  Hamilton  to  those  of  Senator  Morrill  and  Mr. 
Blaine,  the  advocates  of  protection  and  the  advocates  of  freer  trade 
have  agreed  that  the  ultimate  object  should  be  absolute  free  trade 
in  the  future  ;  that  the  point  to  be  reached  by  economic  legisla- 
tion was  ultimately  the  firm  establishment  of  free  and  untram- 
melled commerce  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  The  plea  of 
the  advocates  of  protection  was  that  it  was  necessary  only  in  the 


140  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

infancy  of  certain  industries  ;  that  it  was  simply  temporary;  that 
it  WHS  a  burden  to  be  borne  only  for  a  time  ;  to  be  justified  solely 
because  it  would  bring  about  more  speedily  that  system  of  com- 
merce which  all  recognized  to  be  beneficial.  And  until  the  pres- 
ent generation  of  statesmen  came  into  power  there  was  no  dispute 
as  to  this.  As  soon  as  the  claim  was  seriously  put  forth  that  pro- 
tection in  and  of  itself  was  to  be  primarily  sought  in  bills 
"raising  revenue,"  and  that  the  true  end  of  economic  statesman- 
ship was  the  isolation  of  the  country  from  all  other  nations,  and 
the  erection  of  higher  barriers  to  the  introduction  of  foreign  im- 
ports, then  the  nature  of  the  contest  necessarily  changed.  For- 
merly, while  the  discussion  of  the  principles  involved  was  important 
and  able,  the  disputes  were  very  much  over  details.  Now  the  conten- 
tion is  not  only  over  the  details, — that  is,  on  the  schedules  of  the 
tariff  bill, — but  over  the  principles  of  the  different  systems. 

I  look  always  with  some  suspicion  upon  columns  of  figures 
made  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  a  pet  theory,  and  it  is  always 
misleading  to  attempt  to  account  for  the  growth  of  a  people  upon 
any  one  ground.  The  most  complicated  practical  experiment 
which  can  possibly  be  made  in  the  world  is  the  development  of  a 
nation.  More  factors  enter  into  it  than  into  any  other  experi- 
ment, and  there  are  no  means  yet  discovered  which  are  at  all 
reliable  to  estimate  or  measure  the  relative  power,  activity,  and 
value  of  these  different  factors.  At  the  best  it  is  a  mere  guess 
as  to  what  has  been  the  effect  of  a  particular  single  cause  upon 
the  growth  and  development  of  this  country.  That  we  have 
prospered  is  beyond  all  doubt.  That  we  prospered  in  our  colonial 
days  is  equally  beyond  all  doubt.  That  even  during  the  weak 
and  doubtful  days  of  the  Confederation,  before  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  we  continued  to  grow  is  historically  true  ;  and 
every  decade  has  found  us  more  populous,  richer,  and  more 
powerful  at  its  end  than  its  beginning.  This  growth  has  been 
under  every  form  of  economic  legislation  adopted  by  Congress. 
It  has  been  greater  at  certain  periods  than  at  others.  How  far  it 
has  been  affected  by  events  in  other  countries,  their  wars,  the 
burdens  of  standing  armies,  the  famine  in  Ireland,  the  discovery 
of  new  continents,  the  inventions  and  progress  in  industrial  arts 
abroad,  we  have  no  means  of  accurately  measuring.  What  effect  any 
particular  domestic  event  or  cause  had,  we  cannot  accurately  tell. 

The  formation  of  the  Constitution,  the  acquisition  of  Louis- 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  141 

iana,  the  removal  of  the  Indian  tribes  to  the  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, the  institution  of  slavery,  the  war  and  the  destruction  or 
slavery,  the  wondrous  mechanical  inventions,  the  almost  bound- 
less extent  of  fertile  land  to  be  had  for  the  asking,  the  enormous 
immigration  from  abroad,  the  diversity  of  climate,  the  varied  and 
inexhaustible  mineral  resources,  the  peculiar  system  of  water- 
ways, especially  t]^c  lake  system  in  the  North  and  the  river  system 
in  the  Mississippi  valley  ;  above  all,  our  free  institutions  and  the 
peculiar  nature  and  qualities  of  our  particular  race,  have  had, 
indubitably,  very  great  effects,  no  one  of  which  can  be  accurately 
measured.  It  is,  therefore,  disingenuous  and  wholly  misleading 
for  the  advocates  of  protection  to  claim  that  the  whole  of  this  vast 
prosperity  is  due  to  that  economic  system.  It  will  be  recalled 
that,  high  as  has  been  this  protective  tariff,  it  has  never  been  pro- 
hibitory save  on  a  comparatively  few  articles  ;  that  our  exports 
have  always  been  paid  for  by  an  equivalent  value  of  imports  ;  that 
during  considerable  periode  of  our  history — in  the  main  substan- 
tially more  than  half  of  it — the  duties  imposed  were  not  high 
enough  to  interfere  ceriously  with  the  natural  and  proper  develop- 
ment of  our  industries,  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  may  be  the 
effect  of  protection  ^/hen  it  is  fully  and  completely  put  into  oper- 
ation, it  has  not  yet  been  entirely  and  satisfactorily  tried. 

An  able  article  appeared  not  long  since  in  which  it  was 
attempted  to  be  demonstrated  that  the  destruction  by  prohibition 
of  the  liquor  traffic  would  destroy  the  cause  of  a  large  part  of  the 
prosperity  of  the  hundred-odd  years  of  our  history.  It  was  said 
that  the  prosperity  of  any  city  or  section  could  be  accurately 
measured  by  the  number  of  the  saloons  therein.  As,  for 
example,  the  largest,  wealthiest,  most  powerful  city  in  America 
— the  imperial  and  majestic  city  of  New  York,  with  its  great 
sister-cities  clustered  about  it  as  gems  around  a  great  diamond — 
had  more  liquor  saloons  in  its  limits  than  thirteen  of  the  States  of 
the  South  ;  and  in  parallel  columns  were  given  the  figures  which 
"  demonstrated "  (to  use  the  favorite  term  of  our  protection 
friends)  that  wealth  and  prosperity  went  hand  in  hand  with  the 
liquor  traffic.  To  the  minutest  detail  the  arguments  made  by  Mr. 
Blaine  and  Senator  Morrill  in  favor  of  protection  were  made  by 
this  writer  in  favor  of  the  liquor  trade,  with  perhaps  the  excep- 
tion that  the  facts  in  his  case  were  stated  with  somewhat  less  of 
rhetorical  beauty  and  more  of  historical  accuracy.  He  did  not  have 


142  50TH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

to  falsify  so  large  a  period  in  our  history  as  that  between  1846  and 
1860  ;  nor  did  he  have  to  make  assertions  as  to  which  only  respect 
for  these  eminent  gentlemen  prevents  one  from  intimating  that 
they  were  known  to  be  inaccurate.  I  leave  it  to  others  whether  the 
conclusion  drawn  by  that  writer  is  not  as  worthy  of  acceptance  as 
the  conclusion  drawn  by  these  distinguished  gentlemen. 

From  my  early  recollection  until  the  end  of  the  war  I  heard 
the  same  arguments  made  concerning  the  institution  of  slavery, 
and  supported  by  similar  figures.  The  growth  of  population  in 
those  fifteen  Southern  States,  the  increasing  wealth,  the  many 
thousands  of  acres  of  new  laud  brought  under  successful  and  in- 
telligent culture,  the  increasing  crops  of  cotton,  the  many  in- 
stitutions of  learning,  the  attractive  civilization,  were  eloquently 
and  apparently  conclusively  urged  to  "  demonstrate"  the  proposi- 
tion that  slavery  as  an  economic  institution  was  of  the  very  highest 
value,  and  as  a  moral  institution  of  still  greater  profit.  I  also 
leave  to  others  to  decide  whether  that  demonstration  in  the  light 
of  to-day  would  be  held  to  be  conclusive. 

That  system  of  protection  which  Mr.  Blaine  and  Senator  Mor- 
rill now  praise,  and  to  which  they  ascribe  all  the  wondrous  growth 
of  the  past  thirty  years,  has  been  latterly  reviewed  by  the  present 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  late  report  to  Congress.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  it  is  not  protection  only  which  has  produced 
these  marvellous  results,  but  necessarily  it  is  that  form  of  pro- 
tection, that  peculiar  system  of  protection,  which  we  have  en- 
joyed in  America.  It  may  be  possible — though  I  myself  utterly 
deny  it — that  there  might  be  devised  a  system  of  protection  which 
would  be  wise;  under  which  undervaluation  by  the  importer  and 
adulteration  by  the  domestic  manufacturer  would  not  be  both 
caused  and  encouraged.  But  we  must  discuss  the  system  to  which 
these  gentlemen  ascribe  these  beneficent  results.  Now,  that  sys- 
tem has  been  described  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his 
late  report.  The  statutes  under  which  we  have  lived,  and  by 
means  of  which  these  results  have  been  produced,  have  been 
analyzed.  No  Free-Trader  has  used  such  intensely  hostile  and 
uncomplimentary  terms  in  description  of  that  system  as  have 
been  used  by  the  present  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  that  re- 
port. There  is  hardly  any  charge  which  can  be  brought  against 
an  economic  system  that  he  has  not  brought  against  that  system. 
He  winds  up  his  description  of  onlvone  feature — appeals  and  suits 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  143 

caused  by  doubts  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  tariff  schedules — with 
this  sweeping  conclusion  :  "  All  this  is  subversive  of  commercial 
and  official  morality,  is  destructive  of  legitimate  trade,  and 
appeals  to  the  judgment  of  all  fair-minded  men  for  correction.'' 

This  is  the  system  which  these  gentlemen  praise  ;  under 
which,  they  urge,  we  have  prospered  ;  by  means  of  which  good 
morals,  patriotism,  and  all  the  virtues  that  can  adorn  a  free 
citizen  have  been  developed  and  encouraged ;  and  through  and 
by  means  of  which  the  country  has  become  the  great  exemplar  of 
the  commercial  world.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  these  are  tem- 
porary evils  of  unwise  statesmanship,  because  it  is  this  very  sys- 
tem under  which  these  gentlemen  say  we  have  grown. 

It  seems  to  be  impossible  to  have  any  period  of  the  history  of 
America  accurately  understood.  If  these  distinguished  gentle- 
men, and  those  who  agree  with  them  in  their  views,  are  now  to 
be  believed,  the  condition  of  the  country  from  1846  to  1860  was 
one  of  deplorable  retrogression.  This  view  probably  was  discov- 
ered by  the  late  Hon.  William  D.  Kelley,  whose  long  and  con- 
tinuous service  on  the  Ways-and-Means  Committee,  as  well  as  in 
the  House,  and  whose  great  ability  and  equally  great  singleness 
of  purpose,  gave  him  unusual  conspicuousness  and  large  influ- 
ence, out  of  which  grew  the  two  celebrated  debates  between 
him  and  General  Garfield.  It  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  call 
attention  to  the  speech  of  General  Garfield,  delivered  on  March 
6,  1878,  in  the  Forty  fifth  Congress,  in  which  he  with  great  care 
set  out  the  result  of  his  industrious  researches  about  that  period 
from  1846  to  1860.  I  would  not  myself  even  seem  to  be  so  guilty 
of  want  of  respect  towards  the  distinguished  disputants  in  this 
particular  discussion  as  to  say  that  they  have  distorted  the  history 
of  our  country;  but  General  Garfield,  in  answering  the  argument 
made  by  Mr.  Kelley,  which  is  now  repeated  by  these  gentlemen, 
did  not  hesitate  to  say  :  "  We  can  find  ample  ground  for  the  suf- 
ficient protection  of  American  manufactures  without  distorting 
the  history  of  our  country."  I  quote  but  one  single  sentence 
from  that  great  speech  of  General  Garfield's  : 

"  The  fact  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  decade  from  1850  to  1860  was  one  of  peace  and  gen- 
eral prosperity.  The  aggregate  volume  of  real  and  pf^rsonal  property  in  the  United 
States  in  185U  was,  in  round  numbers,  17,135,00  ',000;  in  I860,  |16,159,00O.00O— an  increase 
of  128  per  cent.,  while  the  population  increased  but  35  per  cent.  Yet  to  suit  a  theory 
of  finance,  wo  are  told  that  1860  was  a  year  of  great  distress  and  depletion  of  busi- 
ness, equalled  only  by  the  distress  of  the  present  year." 


144  BOTH  SIDES  Olr  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  year  in  which  he  spoke  was  1878,  being  the  fifth  year  of  that 
great  and  troubled  period  of  financial  distress  which  cannot  be 
recalled  without  pain  even  to  this  day,  and  which  occurred  under 
the  present  system  of  a  protective  tariff.  If  the  description  of  the 
decade  from  1850  to  1860,  as  drawn  by  General  Garfield,  could  be 
put  in  parallel  columns  with  an  appropriate  description  of  that 
period  from  1873  to  1878, — such  as  that  made  by  Mr.  Mills  in  the 
February  number  of  this  Review, — no  human  ingenuity  could  con- 
fuse the  simplest  intellect  or  render  the  choice  of  any  unpreju- 
diced citizen  doubtful  as  between  the  two  systems  which  were  in 
operation  at  these  two  different  periods. 

In  Report  No.  2,848  from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
made  during  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  is  a 
letter  from  the  Hon.  J.  Q.  Smith,  of  Ohio,  from  which  I  quote 
these  passages  : 

"By  the  census  of  1850  the  estimated  value  of  farms  in  the  United  States  was  $3,271,- 
575,126.  In  1860  the  value  was  estimated  at  ^,615,045,007,  showing  an  increased  value 
during  the  decade  of  $3,373,469,581,  or  more  than  100  per  cent.  In  1870  the  value  of 
the  farms  was  estimated  at  $9,262,803,861,  showing  an  increase  during  the  decade  of 
$2,617,758,861,  or  less  than  40  per  cent.  In  1880  the  value  of  the  farms  was  estimated 
at  $10,197,096,776,  being  an  increase  during  the  decade  of  $939,292,915,  or  only  a  frac 
tlon  over  9  per  cent.  (See  '  Compendium  of  the  Census'  of  1880,  page  58.)  The 
value  of  live  stock  in  the  United  States  in  1850  was  estimated  at  $544,180,566.  In  1860 
it  was  valued  at  $1,089,329,915.  The  increase  during  the  decade  was  $545,149,349,  or 
over  100  per  cent.  In  1870  it  was  estimated  at  $1,525,276,547,  being  an  increase  during 
the  decade  of  $435,946,542,  or  less  than  40  per  cent.  In  1880  the  live  stock  was  esti- 
mated at  $1,500,464,609,  being  a  decrease  during  the  decade  of  nearly  $25,000,000,  or 
more  them  \\i  per  cent." 

The  figures  given  in  this  report  taken  from  the  "Compendium  of 
the  Census"  have  been  fiercely  attacked,  but  the  facts  stated  re- 
main true.  I  merely  give  them  because  they  illustrate  the  growth 
during  three  decades, — the  first  during  the  existence  of  what  is 
known  as  the  Walker  tariff ;  the  second,  that  of  the  great  war  be- 
tween the  States;  and  the  third,  during  the  operation  oi  the  protect- 
ive tariff  (which  decade,  however,  included  the  years  of  the  great 
panic).  The  basis  of  our  wealth  must  always  be  its  agriculture ; 
and  I  use  this  particular  quotation  because  it  is  confined  to  our 
agricultural  wealth  during  that  period.  Surely  a  system  which 
during  the  ten  years  from  1870  to  1880  could  not  prevent  an  actual 
decrease  in  the  value  of  the  live  stock  of  America,  and  could  pro- 
duce only  an  increase  of  a  fraction  over  9  per  cent,  in  the  value 
of  the  farms  of  America,  is  not  one  that  should  commend  itself 
to  a  people  largely  dependent  upon  agriculture. 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  145 

It  is,  of  course,  absurd  to  maintain  that  any  system  of  pro- 
tection can  benefit  all  persons  equally.  If  it  did,  it  would  leave 
every  one  relatively  in  the  same  position  that  he  was  in  at  the 
beginning,  and  would  be  a  useless  system.  If  it  did  not,  it  would 
necessarily  operate  unequally  and  unjustly.  The  value  of  the 
present  system  to  its  advocates  is  that  it  benefits  them ;  that  they 
obtain  advantages  under  it ;  that  by  means  of  legislation  their 
profits  are  increased  ;  that  by  it  they  are  enabled — or  their  friends 
and  supporters  and  allies — to  carry  on  their  business  at  a  profit. 
If  it  were  not  for  this,  it  could  have  no  advocates.  The  very 
gist  of  the  system  is  that  it  gives  to  certain  persons  a  legislative 
advantage.  It  must  follow  that  those  who  by  legislation  have  ob- 
tained the  advantage  will  use  it  to  maintain  that  advantage  ;  and 
does  any  one  doubt  that  this  is  exactly  what  we  have  witnessed  in 
the  last  few  years  and  are  now  witnessing  at  Washington  ?  The 
direct  beneficiaries  of  legislation  will  always  attempt  to  maintain 
by  legislation  that  advantage,  and  an  easy  and  simple  mode  of 
maintaining  it  is  to  select  those  who  are  to  legislate ;  so  that  it 
would  be  inexplicable  if  the  beneficiaries  of  this  system  had  not 
done  all  that  was  possible  to  have  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
composed  of  persons  who  are  friendly  to  them  and  to  the  system. 

How  far  it  is  possible  to  honestly  and  incorruptly  select  legis- 
lators by  whom  private  interests  are  to  be  maintained  by  legis- 
lation, we  are  unable  to  estimate;  but  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  in 
the  end  the  means  will  not  be  carefully  scrutinized,  not  only  as  to 
their  propriety,  but  as  to  their  efficiency.  If  the  fortune  and  busi- 
ness of  the  citizen  depend  upon  the  vote  of  the  Representative  from 
his  district,  the  temptation  to  select  a  Representative  largely,  if 
not  solely,  because  of  his  certainty  to  deliver  that  vote  becomes 
almost  irresistible  ;  and  the  extent  of  the  interest  involved  will 
pretty  accurately  measure  the  strength  of  the  temptation,  and  it 
will  also  pretty  accurately  foretell  the  extent  of  the  means  used. 
Favorable  legislation  becomes  a  matter  of  necessary  business 
administration.  He  who  is  dependent  upon  it  for  his  profits  must 
look  to  it  as  carefully  as  he  does  to  the  purchase  of  his  material 
or  to  the  state  of  the  market  ;  and  when  other  persons  have  like 
interests,  he  will,  of  course,  combine  with  those  other  persons  to 
maintain  their  common  interests.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible 
tiiat  there  should  be  either  legislative  reform,  civil-service  reform, 
or  ballot  reform,  so  long  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 


146  BOTH  SIDES  OP  THE  TARIEF  QUESTION. 

exercises  the  power  to  make  or  mar  the  fortunes  of  the  wealthiest, 
the  largest,  and  the  most  powerful  combinations  in  the  land. 

If  the  market  be  so  limited  that  the  purchaser  is  compelled  to 
buy  certain  articles  from  certain  persons,  the  motive  to  manufact- 
ure the  best  possible  article  is  removed  from  the  manufacturer, 
and  the  temptation  to  produce  the  meanest  possible  article  so  as 
to  obtain  the  highest  possible  profit  becomes  great,  if  not  irresist- 
ible. Where  the  market  is  crowded  by  competition  and  the  price 
is  fixed  by  quality,  he  who  produces  at  the  lowest  cost  the  best 
article  secures  the  largest  part  of  the  market  and  the  largest 
profit.  He  must,  therefore,  study  carefully,  so  as  to  make  the 
best  article  with  the  highest  skill  and  at  the  lowest  cost.  The  least 
cost  of  production  necessarily  means  the  highest  cost  of  wage, 
because  the  greatest  skill  produces  not  only  the  best  article,  but 
the  most  of  it.  Therefore,  under  that  very  competition  which  I  have 
supposed,  there  must  result  in  the  end  the  highest  human  skill  to 
which  is  paid  the  best  attainable  wage,  so  that  the  same  amount 
of  labor  may  produce  the  utmost  value  of  product.  This  produces 
necessarily  the  highest  human  development,  for  success  depends 
upon  skill  and  brain.  He  goes  to  the  wall  who  is  not  competent 
for  the  business  he  has  undertaken  ;  and  so  it  is  found  to  be  true 
in  all  of  those  products  which  have  no  protection  by  legislation. 
If  you  can  select  an  industry  where  the  price  paid  depends  upon 
the  highest  human  capacity,  you  will  find  that  he  succeeds  best 
who  has  the  greatest  skill,  and  so  on  down  from  the  artist  of  high- 
est renown  to  the  artisan  in  the  factories. 

The  rule  is  universally  true.  The  more  protection  is  given — 
that  is,  the  more  competition  is  removed — and  the  more  limited 
becomes  the  option  of  the  purchaser,  especially  where  the  product 
is  a  necessary  of  life,  the  less  honesty,  brain,  and  skill  are  required 
to  sell  the  protected  article;  and  so  high  tariffs  make  adulterated 
products.  Not  only  do  they  make  adulterated  products  inside  of 
the  barrier,  but  they  cause  competition  with  these  adulterated 
fabrics  by  undervalued  importations.  Honest  goods,  made  by 
honest  manufacturers  and  imported  by  honest  importers,  are 
excluded  by  high  duties,  except  in  certain  rare  emergencies,  and 
consequently  the  only  competition  with  the  adulterated  domestic 
article  becomes  the  undervalued  imported  article  introduced 
through  fraud  and  perjury;  so  that  in  this  very  Congress  we  have 
seen  the  majority,  under  the  lead  of  its  most  distinguished  Repre- 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  147 

sentative  on  the  floor,  pass  a  bill  depriving  importers  of  trial  by 
jury,  and  taking  away  from  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  as  to 
importers,  the  right  to  ascertain  the  facts  by  judicial  processes ; 
and  this  is  justified  upon  the  ground  that  the  bulk  of  the  im- 
porters are  dishonest,  and  that  the  statements  concerning  importa- 
tions are  untrue.  It  cannot  be,  in  a  community  so  inextricably 
inter-involved  as  we  are,  that  a  large  class  of  manufacturers  can 
produce  adulterated  goods,  and  a  large  class  of  importers  can 
habitually,  through  perjury,  import  undervalued  goods,  without 
commercial  morality  being  generally  impaired.  It  is  obviously 
not  unnatural  that  thinkers  like  Mr.  Gladstone  should  look  upon 
protective  tariffs  as  capable  of  producing  immoral  trade. 
Senator  Morrill,  who  is  always  frank  as  well  as  able,  says  : 

"  Americans  prefers  to  make  a  home  market  for  all  of  their  agricultural  prod- 
ucts, and  not  to  depend  upon  uncertain  and  elusive  foreign  markets.  Every  ship- 
load of  wheat  or  corn  exported  not  only  impoverishes  the  fertility  of  the  land  whence 
it  was  taken,  but  tends  to  reduce  both  the  price  abroad  and  at  home." 

Exports  of  agricultural  products  necessarily  render  possible  the 
sale  of  the  surplus  remaining  after  the  wants  of  home  consump- 
tion have  been  supplied.  It  is  an  economic  law,  now  thoroughly 
understood,  that  the  value  of  the  surplus  fixes  the  value  of  the  en- 
tire product,  and  therefore  the  value  of  that  surplus  sold  abroad 
fixes  the  price  which  is  paid  at  home.  If  no  market  can  be 
found  for  that  surplus,  then,  of  course,  the  value  of  the  entire 
product  would  be  greatly  diminished.  Is  it  improper  to  submit 
to  Senator  Morrill  the  inquiry.  What  would  have  become  of  the 
agi'icultural  products  of  America  if  there  had  been  no  foreign 
market  in  which  the  surplus  could  have  been  sold  ?  But  for  the 
foreign  market  taking  that  annual  surplus,  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  we  should  have  been  a  bankrupt  nation.  How  it  is  possi- 
ble to  reach  a  state  of  mind  that  looks  upon  the  possibility  of  pre- 
serving by  exportation  of  our  surplus  the  value  at  fairly-remunera- 
tive prices  of  our  agricultural  products  as  an  evil,  is  an  insoluble 
mystery.  If  our  farmers  could  not  have  sold  that  surplus  abroad, 
what  would  be  their  condition  to-day?  and  how  could  it  be  possible 
that  the  fact  that  we  raise  more  than  we  use  tends  to  poverty  ? 

A  nation,  like  a  man,  can  only  grow  rich  by  producing  more 
than  it  uses,  and  accumulating  year  by  year  the  value  of  that 
yearly  surplus.  If,  also,  there  had  been  subtracted  from  the 
wealth  of  America  all  imports  which  were  purchased  by  the  agri- 
cultural surplus  sent  abroad,  our  industrial  interests  would  be 
10 


148  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

destroyed.  There  can  be  no  greater  delusion  than  that  of  a 
possible  "home  market"  in  which  everything  produced  in 
America  is  sold  and  in  which  everything  needed  for  America  is 
produced  here  and  sold  here.  The  very  existence  of  our  in- 
dustries depends  upon  commerce — that  is,  upon  the  power  to  im- 
port what  we  need  and  to  pay  for  it  by  what  we  export ;  what  we 
export  being  that  surplus  of  our  product  which  remains  after  our 
wants  are  supplied.  He  who  buys  must  first  have  something  to 
sell,  and  sell  it ;  and  his  capacity  to  buy  is  precisely  measured  by 
what  he  obtains  for  that  which  he  sells.  Every  import  into 
America  is,  in  effect,  the  product  of  American  sweat ;  and,  if  pur- 
chased at  a  fair  price,  it  has  also  in  it  an  element  of  American  profit. 

The  farmer  produces  his  wheat,  and  if  he  sells  it  at  a  profit,  he 
puts  the  money  thus  obtained  into  English  products  ;  and  if  he 
purchases  those  products  at  a  fair  price  when  he  imports  them, 
they  represent  his  sweat  and  skill  in  the  production  of  his  wheat, 
his  skill  and  profit  in  the  sale  of  his  wheat,  and  his  skill  and  profit 
as  a  trader  in  the  purchase  of  the  foreign  product ;  so  that  when 
that  product  is  brought  to  America  and  sold,  it  is  as  much  his 
product — the  product  of  American  sweat — as  a  bushel  of  wheat 
produced  by  the  same  farmer  on  the  same  land  and  sold  in  New 
York,  instead  of  beiiig  sent  to  Liverpool  for  sale.  Every  exaction 
in  the  shape  of  transportation,  commissions,  or  insurance  placed 
upon  that  wheat  retards  commerce,  injures  the  wheat-grower,  and 
adds  to  the  price  of  the  wheat  to  the  consumer  ;  and  every  exac- 
tion put  upon  that  into  which  he  puts  his  money  before  it  goes 
into  the  open  market  in  America,  in  the  shape  of  freight,  com- 
mission, insurance,  and  duty,  also  adds  to  the  cost  to  the  consumer, 
impairs  the  profit  that  can  be  made  out  of  the  transaction,  and 
renders  the  whole  transaction  more  cumbersome,  uncertain,  and 
troublesome.  Therefore  it  is  to  the  true  interest  of  those  who  pro- 
duce these  exportations  that  the  exactions  shall  be  as  few,  as  small, 
and  as  simple  as  possible  ;  for  in  the  end  all  of  these  burdens  come 
out  of  the  ultimate  consumers — and  the  ultimate  consumers  are 
the  laborers,  who  have  produced  the  respective  articles  which  by 
our  mode  of  purchase  and  sale  are  bartered  for  each  other. 

It  is  astounding  to  hear  intelligent  men  speak  of  the  possi< 
bility  of  our  agricultural  products  being  consumed  at  home.  In 
round  numbers  we  are  sending  28  per  cent,  of  our  breadstuffa 
abroad — that  is,  after  feeding  every  mouth  in  America,  there  is 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  149 

28  per  cent,  of  our  breadstuff s  left  unused.  At  present  our  in- 
dustrial capacity  is  much  greater  than  our  industrial  needs. 
Every  industry  needs  a  larger  market.  "We  produce  now  more 
than  we  can  consume.  We  are  being  strangled  by  the  limitations 
put  upon  our  market.  We  cannot,  therefore,  profitably  increase 
the  workmen  and  their  families  who  produce  these  manufact- 
ured products.  Yet  before  our  agricultural  products  can  be  con- 
sumed at  home  there  must  be  an  increase  of  American  population 
of  about  nineteen  millions,  and  every  bread-winner  of  those  nine- 
teen millions  must  go  to  work  at  something  which  does  not 
produce  breadstuff s.  This,  of  course,  shows  the  utter  absurdity  of 
a  home  market  consuming  our  products.  If  we  feed  the  nineteen 
millions  of  additional  mouths  which  are  necessary  to  consume  that 
product,  at  what  are  we  to  put  them  ? — for  already  we  overproduce. 

But  our  growth  is  largely  agricultural.  It  is  not  true  that  the 
laborers  who  come  among  us  from  abroad  are  largely  skilled 
laborers.  Hence  our  agricultural  products  increase  more  rapidly, 
probably,  than  the  fabrics  of  our  looms  and  factories ;  and  this 
increased  production  must  find  a  market  elsewhere ;  and  when  it 
finds  that  market,  the  amount  of  money  realized  by  the  sale 
in  that  market  is  substantially  spent  here  ;  for  while  it  may  be 
Invested  in  a  foreign  product,  that  foreign  product  represents  the 
American  wheat,  and  gives  capacity  to  the  foreign  workman  to 
buy  that  American  wheat.  Therefore,  economically  it  is  true,  and 
historically  it  is  proved,  that  the  larger  our  exportations  the 
larger  necessarily  our  importations,  the  higher  are  the  prices  of 
domestic  products  here,  and  the  more  prosperous  are  all  our  in- 
dustries. When  we  sell  most  abroad  and  buy  most  abroad,  we 
have  in  America  more  money  to  buy  at  home,  and  the  period  is  a 
period  of  prosperity  and  growth ;  and  the  years  in  which  we 
have  been  prosperous  can  be  selected  by  turning  to  the  statistical 
reports  and  taking  from  them  the  years  of  large  foreign  commerce. 

The  mere  repetition,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  of  the  asser- 
tion that  wages  depend  upon  the  tariff  has  been  accepted  by  many 
as  proof  that  it  is  true,  when  the  fact  stares  them  in  the  face  that 
the  rate  of  wages  does  not  bear  any  perceptible  relation  to  the 
tariff.  That  it  has  some  effect  is  true  ;  that  this  effect,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  is  deleterious  I  have  not  any  doubt;  but  the  othej  causes 
are  so  numerous  and  so  potent  that  as  yet  they  seem  to  control. 
AH  the  European  countries  have  a  high  tariff  except  Great  Britain, 


150  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  wages  in  every  part  of  Europe  are  lower  than  they  are  in 
Great  Britain.  Since  Great  Britain  changed  her  economic  Bystem 
her  wages  have  constantly  increased,  and  they  continue  to  increase. 
Now,  if  these  statements  contain  the  whole  of  the  case,  it  would 
seem  to  follow  that  the  high  tariff  reduces  the  wages  in  continental 
Europe,  and  free  trade  increases  them  in  Great  Britain.  But  this 
is  not  the  whole  case.  The  burdens  of  taxation,  which  are  very 
great  in  all  continental  Europe,  must  ultimately  come  out  of  labor. 
The  inheritance  of  centuries  of  misgovernment  is  class  distinction, 
heavy  taxation,  poverty,  and  low  wages  ;  and  also  deterioration  of 
manhood,  retardation  of  industrial  skill,  inaptness  in  industrial 
labor,  so  that  the  wage- worker  produces  less  and  is  worth  less  as  a 
worker  ;  the  exactions  are  greater,  and  his  condition  in  life  is  de- 
plorable. An  Englishman  produces  in  fifty-six  hours  more  than 
his  brother  Frenchman  or  Italian  in  seventy-two  hours  ;  is  worth 
that  much  more  ;  and  he  produces  not  only  more,  but  a  better  arti- 
cle, and  his  employer  has  a  larger  capital  and  a  greater  capacity  for 
business,  and  so  assures  to  his  product  a  wider  market.  Producing 
a  better  article  at  a  lower  cost,  vendible  in  a  wider  market,  it  follows 
that  he  is  worth  more.  His  employer  also  can  afford  to  pay  more, 
because  the  exactions  required  of  him  by  his  government  are  less. 
When  we  come  to  this  continent,  we  find  precisely  the  same 
condition  of  affairs.  Canada,  the  United  States,  and  Mexico  have 
protective  tariffs.  These  three  countries  occupy  a  continent,  and 
the  wages  of  the  laborers  differ,  not  only  in  each  of  the  several 
countries,  but  in  different  portions  of  the  respective  countries. 
The  average  rate  of  wages  paid  in  Maine  is  $257  a  year,  while  in  Con- 
necticut it  is  $385  a  year;  in  Vermont,  $303,  and  in  Massachusetts, 
$364.  These  four  States,  lying  close  together,  under  precisely 
the  same  protective  system,  inhabited  by  exactly  the  same  race 
and  type  of  people,  would,  by  the  rules  propounded  by  our  pro- 
tection friends,  pay  the  same  rate  of  wages ;  and  yet  the  facts 
show  that  the  laborer  obtains  in  each  of  these  States  a  different 
amount  from  that  which  his  brother-workman  does  in  either  of 
the  others.  And  this  appears  to  be  true  as  to  the  cities  as  well  as 
the  States.  I  take  the  following  figures  from  the  speech  of  my 
friend  and  colleague,  the  Hon.  Benjamin  Butterworth,  delivered 
in  the  House  on  May  16,  1888  :  In  Lynn,  Mass.,  the  rate  per 
capita  is  $469,  while  in  Lowell  it  is  $394.20;  and  in  Chicago  it  is 
$436,      St.  Louis  pays  per  capita  $424,  while  in  Philadelphia  the. 


pei:e  thads  ok  pkotEcTio^.  151 

rate  is  $340.  In  Lawrence,  Mass.,  the  rate  is  $331,  while  in 
New  Orleans  it  is  $391,  and  in  Dubuque,  la.,  $461.  This  dis- 
parity marks  the  relative  wages  of  every  section  of  the  country. 

The  rule  as  to  the  relation  between  the  wages  of  the  workman 
and  the  cost  of  the  product  is  that,  as  the  skill  of  the  laborer 
increases,  the  cost  of  the  product  decreases,  and  the  relative  pro- 
portion of  wage  to  cost  increases.  In  a  new  country,  where  land 
is  low  and  labor  is  scarce,  where  all  the  avenues  of  life  are  prac- 
tically opened  to  the  industrious,  the  frugal,  and  the  sober,  labor 
is  necessarily  high  ;  it  is  in  great  demand.  It  does  not  like  to 
work  for  wages  paid  by  another,  but  seeks  employment  for  itself. 
And  so  the  new  countries  pay  high  wages,  and  our  new  "West, 
without  any  protection  by  means  of  the  tariff  against  the  rich,  pros- 
perous, and  successful  East,  prospers.  Where  a  country  is  thickly 
populated  ;  where  the  industries  are  carefully  separated  ;  where 
labor  is  plentiful ;  where  the  skill  required  for  certain  industries 
renders  labor  comparatively  unprofitable  in  other  industries  ; 
where  the  avenues  of  life  open  to  the  laborer  are  comparatively 
few,  except  to  the  unusually  vigorous,  aggressive,  and  able,  there 
labor  must  combine  to  take  care  of  itself  :  the  relation  of 
employer  and  employee  created  is  entirely  different  from  that 
relation  in  the  far  West ;  and  the  wage  of  the  laborer  is  affected 
by  all  these  conditions. 

But  here,  again,  the  truth  which  lies  at  the  bottom  is  that  the 
more  readily  the  product  of  his  labor  can  be  sold,  the  better  the 
article  is,  and  the  higher  its  price,  the  more  will  the  laborer  obtain 
for  his  labor.  He  needs  the  widest  possible  market  in  which  that 
product  can  be  sold,  and  the  more  the  market  is  limited  his  wage 
becomes  reduced.  So,  also,  the  larger  the  competition  consistent 
with  a  fair  profit,  the  better  it  is  for  him;  for  if  his  employer  has 
no  competitor,  then  he  is  the  sole  controller  of  the  wage  which 
he  shall  pay.  If  he  controls  the  market  in  which  the  fabric  ia  to 
be  sold,  he  controls  the  price  at  which  the  fabric  is  to  be  sold, 
and  he  can  control  also  the  price  which  he  will  pay  for  the  mar 
terial  contained  tliercin  and  for  the  labor  necessary  to  turn  that 
material  into  the  finished  fabric.  Therefore,  whatever  may  be 
the  interest  of  the  employer,  it  is  clearly  to  the  interest  of  the 
laborer  that  there  shall  be  no  trammel  put  upon  the  purchase  of 
the  material  with  which  he  has  to  work  and  no  limit  to  the 
market  in  which  his  product  is  to  be  sold. 


l6S  SOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

In  passing,  I  desire  to  put  on  record  the  proof  that  the  state- 
ment constantly  made  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  immigration 
from  abroad  is  of  mechanics  and  skilled  workmen  is  not  true. 
Mr.  Powers,  a  correspondent  of  one  of  the  Chicago  dailies,  has 
taken  the  trouble  to  put  in  tabular  form  the  occupations  of  the 
immigrants  to  America  for  the  ten  years  from  1877  to  1886,  in- 
clusive, from  which  I  have  gathered  this  :  In  the  ten  years  from 
1877  to  1886  there  arrived  in  this  country  4,255,295  immigrants, 
of  whom  somewhat  more  than  one-half  were  women  and  children. 
Of  the  remaining  2,120,582,  there  were  only  35,581,  or  less  than 
2  per  cent,  operatives  in  the  textiles,  metals,  and  other  protected 
industries,  excluding  the  miners,  of  whom  there  were  38,570, 
being  also  less  than  2  per  cent.  That  is,  of  mechanics  and 
skilled  workmen  there  were  only  2  per  cent,  in  the  immigration 
of  ten  years.  These  were,  as  a  rule,  those  with  whom  life  had 
gone  well  at  home.  They  were  of  numbers  just  suflBcient  to  be 
used  either  as  a  menace  or  a  substitute  for  striking  operatives. 

It  is,  therefore,  scarcely  fair  to  say  that  the  immigration  of  la- 
borers from  Europe  demonstrates  that  in  our  protected  industries 
we  pay  better  wages  than  abroad.  During  that  period  we  re- 
ceived 2,046,431  laborers  who  had  to  work  in  the  unprotected  in- 
dustries. Of  these,  1,553,702  were  house  servants,  tillers  of  the 
soil,  and  common  day-laborers.  The  number  of  workmen  en- 
gaged in  any  vocation  which  could  by  any  fairness  at  all  be 
brought  within  the  protective  power  of  our  present  tariff  system 
does  not  equal  the  number  of  laborers  required  to  produce  that 
surplus  which  we  must  sell  abroad.  Whatever  effect  protection 
has  in  increasing  the  rate  of  wages  in  the  industries  protected  op- 
erates on  a  number  of  laborers  no  greater  than  those  required  to 
create  the  products  sold  abroad. 

Is  it  wise,  then,  to  adopt  a  system,  even  if  it  does  increase 
the  wages  of  so  small  a  percentage  of  our  workmen,  when  that  in- 
crease must  necessarily  be  paid  out  of  the  labor  of  the  workmen  in 
industries  not  within  the  scope  of  this  protection?  Upon  the  theory 
of  the  Protectionist,  the  wage  of  the  laborer  in  the  protected  indus- 
tries is  increased,  because  the  home  market  is  preserved  to  him, 
because  the  article  which  he  produces  can  be  sold  at  a  price  which 
it  would  not  otherwise  receive  if  open  competition  were  allowed. 
Out  of  that  increased  price  is  paid  his  increased  wage.  This 
increased  price  is  paid  by  persons  who  work  in  unprotected  in- 


PREE  TRADE  OB  PROTECTION.  163 

dustries,  so  that  in  the  ultimate  analysis  the  increased  w^age  of 
these  comparatively  few  laborers  is  paid  by  taxing  the  labor  of 
those  who  work  in  unprotected  industries.  It  is  estimated  by  the 
best  statisticians  that  7  per  cent,  is  a  liberal  estimate  of  those 
working  for  gain  who  can  be  affected  by  our  present  high  tariff. 
Some  have  made  the  estimate  as  low  as  5  per  cent.  For  myself, 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  wages  of  any  employees  have  been  in- 
creased by  the  protective  system,  and  that,  as  a  rule,  its  effect  has 
been  to  give  to  the  employers  in  these  protected  industries  such 
control  of  their  labor  as  has  enabled  them  to  fix  the  price  of  it ; 
and  that  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  relations  of  labor 
and  capital  is  to  render  the  commerce  of  the  country  as  nearly 
free  as  the  necessities  of  the  government  will  permit. 

From  January  1,  1884,  to  January  1,  1890,  we  exported  of 
domestic  products  the  enormous  sum  of  $4,304,086,830.  Not  a 
dollar  of  this  product  could  find  a  purchaser  in  America;  not  one 
pound  or  yard  of  the  enormous  amount  for  which  we  obtained 
this  sum  could  be  disposed  of  in  the  famous  ''  home  market."  It 
is,  therefore,  absolutely  certain  that  not  only  would  we  have  lost 
this  sum  of  over  $4,000,000,000,  but  a  very  much  larger  amount, 
because  of  the  depreciation  of  the  price  of  our  agricultural  and 
manufacturing  products  for  which  we  found  a  market  at 
home.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  we  could  have  doubled  this 
surplus  if  we  had  been  able  to  find  a  market  in  which  to  sell  it; 
and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  there  were  markets  for  us  in 
which  there  were  buyers  who  had  something  to  sell  which  we 
wanted,  but  which  we  could  not  buy  because  of  the  burdens  im- 
posed by  our  tariff,  and,  therefore,  that  our  sales  were  limited, 
not  by  our  capacity  to  produce,  but  by  our  capacity  to  sell  and 
purchase  under  our  tariff.  How  great  the  disaster  would  have 
been  if  we  had  been  totally  excluded  from  the  foreign  markets,  if 
"  no  ship-loads  of  wheat "  had  been  carried,  and  no  cotton  ex- 
ported, and  no  manufactures  sent  abroad,  cannot  be  measured. 
The  conception  of  an  exclusive  "  home  market,"  under  the  cir- 
cumstances which  surround  us,  is  one  of  those  mysterious  de- 
lusions which  cannot  be  accounted  for.  In  addition,  during  this 
period  we  exported  the  sum  of  $81,345,984  of  foreign  merchan- 
dise, which  passed  through  our  hands  and  on  which  we  obtained 
commission,  and  perhaps  insurance  and  warehouse  fees.  The  cost 
of  merely  handling  this  commerce  amounts  to  a  sum  so  large  that 


154  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

the  loss  of  it  would  produce  a  panic.  A  single  item,  the  freight  on 
the  ocean,  is  nearly  $180,000,000  a  year,  most  of  which  we  pay  to 
foreigners  under  our  absurd  and  antiquated  navigation  laws.  The 
annual  tribute  that  America  pays  for  permitting  its  commerce 
to  be  transported  in  foreign  bottoms  is  1150,000,000,  or  more. 

The  venerable  Senator  is  unconsciously  accurate  when  he  says, 
in  speaking  of  American  competition  and  of  our  system  of  tariff, 
that  "it  follows  that  the  British  workmen  have  derived  and  still 
derive  an  immense  benefit  from  the  system  of  American  protec- 
tion.'' This  is  indubitably  true ;  a  large  part  of  our  statutes 
seems  to  have  been  framed  with  an  eye  to  the  protection  of  the 
foreign  manufacturer. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1888-89  we  imported  $172,134,716 
worth  of  articles  in  a  crude  condition  which  enter  into  the  various 
processes  of  domestic  industry,  upon  which  the  duty  alone  was 
$15,363,625.  We  imported  of  articles  wholly  or  partially  manu- 
factured for  use  in  manufacture  or  mechanical  arts  $84,354,509, 
on  which  we  paid  a  duty  of  $22,195,095.  This  aggregate  sum 
of  $256,489,225  was  paid  for  material  absolutely  needed  by 
our  manufacturers.  This  material  cannot  be  raised  in  America 
or  produced  here,  and  its  importation  is  a  necessity.  This  enor- 
mous sum  is  that  which  we  are  compelled  to  pay  for  the  necessary 
material  which  our  workmen  must  use  in  the  manufactures  in 
which  they  are  employed.  And  the  duty,  $37,558,720,  is  a  direct 
protection  paid  to  the  foreign  manufacturer  and  workman  to  help 
them  exclude  our  workmen  from  the  markets  oi  the  world.  It  is 
just  that  much  more  added  to  the  cost  of  the  American  product, 
and  that  much  additional  burden  put  upon  the  American  manu- 
facturer so  as  to  render  him  that  much  less  capable  of  paying 
better  wages  to  his  workmen  and  making  better  goods  out  of  his 
material.  This  is  the  annual  tribute  paid  in  this  single  instance 
by  the  American  workman  to  the  foreign  workman  under  the  plea 
of  "  protection  to  American  labor."  It  does  not  affect  competi- 
tion in  the  foreign  market  alone,  but  it  gives  such  an  advantage 
to  the  foreign  workman  as  to  render  it  possible  for  him  to  compete 
in  our  home  market.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  continual  increase 
of  the  value  of  woollen  products  imported.  Every  year  the  amount 
fti  value  of  imported  finished  woollen  fabrics  increases.  It  is 
because,  in  spite  of  the  enormous  duties  upon  them,  the  foreign 
workman  obtains  his  material  upon  such  terms  that   he  can  sue- 


FREE  TRADE  OR  PROTEOTton.  166 

cessfuUy  compete  with  the  American  workman  in  our  own  markets. 
During  the  fiscal  year  1887-88  we  imported  of  finished  woollen 
fabrics  $47,158,048  ;  during  the  fiscal  year  1888-89  we  imported 
152,681,482— an  increase  of  something  over  $5,500,000.  Every 
yard  of  this  finished  product  ought  to  have  been  manufactured  in 
America,  and  would  have  been  if  we  had  such  a  revision  of  our 
tariff  system  as  is  needed.  Every  dollar  of  the  wages  and  profit 
in  this  large  sum  ought  to  go  to  American  workmen  and  Ameri- 
can manufacturers.  It  is  now  absolutely  clear  that  this  reform  is 
pressing  upon  us;  and  yet  it  is  resisted  with  all  the  power  of  the 
combinations  which  maintain  the  system  of  protection. 

One  of  the  most  eminent  statisticians  has  asked  the  pertinent 
question,  "  How  much  have  the  iron  and  steel  consumed  in  the 
United  States  cost  our  consumers  in  excess  of  the  cost  of  the  same 
materials  to  consumers  supplied  in  Great  Britain  ?  "  Who  are  the 
consumers  of  iron  and  steel  material  ?  To  whom  must  the  foreign 
pig-iron  or  ore  be  handed  for  work  ?  It  is  the  American  workmen 
who  use  these  materials  in  the  construction  of  all  manner  of  manu- 
factures, and  the  cost  of  the  material,  if  unreasonably  larger  here 
than  abroad,  must  ultimately  be  paid  out  of  the  wages  or  profits. 
For  as  the  aggregate  cost  of  the  article  must  not  so  largely  exceed 
the  cost  of  the  competing  article  as  to  be  driven  out  of  the  market, 
whatever  is  unduly  paid  for  the  material  must  be  taken  out  of  the 
wage  of  the  workman  or  the  profit  of  the  manufacturer;  and  as  the 
manufacturer  and  workman  are  both  Americans,  this  loss,  upon 
whomsoever  it  falls,  falls  upon  an  American,  and  the  gain,  who- 
ever gets  it,  goes  to  a  foreign  competitor.  He  answers  the  ques- 
tion by  a  calculation  which  no  one  can  substantially  correct  or 
deny — that  the  added  cost  for  this  last  ten  years,  that  the  in- 
creased cost  to  the  American  consumer  over  what  the  foreign  con- 
sumer had  to  pay,  is  $700,000,000,  or  an  average  of  170,000,000 
a  year.  This  is  protection  which  the  American  protective  system 
gives  to  the  foreign  workman  over  the  American  workman. 

The  true  protection  of  the  iron  and  steel  interests  in  the  United 
States,  as  concluded  by  this  eminent  economist,  undoubtedly  is 
the  immediate  removal  of  all  duties  on  ore,  and  the  reduction  of 
duties  on  crude  iron  and  steel,  with  the  speedy  purpose  of  wiping 
out  all  duties  on  pig-iron,  so  that  the  American  manufacturer 
may  obtain  his  crude  material  upon  exactly  the  same  terms  as  his 
foreign  competitor.    With  this  done,  well  may  Mr.  Bent,  of  Penn- 


166  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

sylvania,  exclaim  :  "  Then  the  American  manufacturer  can  take 
the  markets  of  the  world."  For,  even  with  the  enormous  burden 
imposed  by  this  unwise  system,  we  have  been  able  to  enter  itito 
the  fields  of  foreign  competition  ;  and  this  feat,  done  in  spite  of 
the  tariff,  is  actually  claimed  by  the  distinguished  Secretary  of 
State  and  the  venerable  Senator  as  the  fruits  of  the  tariff  system. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  mystery  ^that  the  tariff  is  needed  to  give  to  the 
American  workman  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  home  market 
by  excluding  therefrom  the  foreign  competitor,  and  yet  produces 
the  power  to  carry  his  products  to  Canada,  pay  the  Canadian  im- 
post, and  undersell  the  Canadian  and  foreign  w,orkman.  If  we 
can  compete  successfully  in  the  numerous  articles  mentioned  by 
both  of  these  distinguished  gentlemen  with  foreign  competitors  in 
foreign  markets,  why  is  it  that  we  cannot  compete  witli  them 
here,  where  we  have  every  advantage,  and  have,  in  addition,  the 
advantage  of  the  necessary  freight  our  competitors  must  pay  ?  It 
is  giving  away  the  whole  argument  of  protection  when  it  is 
demonstrated  that  we  are  able  to  compete  in  the  foreign  markets 
on  equal  terms.  But  the  terms  are  not  equal,  for  we  pay  more 
for  the  material ;  we  are  hampered  in  the  choice  of  that  material ; 
we  are  burdened  with  trammels;  we  cannot  buy  when  and  where 
and  how  we  please.  Yet,  whenever  the  home  market  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  take  all  our  products,  we  are  compelled  to  make  a  better 
article,  to  rely  upon  the  skill,  ingenuity,  and  industry  of  the  work- 
man and  the  manufacturer  ;  and  then  we  do  make  a  superior 
article  at  a  cheaper  price,  and  demonstrate  our  ability  to  retain 
our  home  market  and  conquer  our  share  of  the  foreign  market. 

When  the  tariff  is  prohibitory,  or  when  the  American  market 
furnishes  a  full  demand  for  all  the  supply,  the  tendency  is  to 
make  the  finished  product  a  poor  and  adulterated  fabric  ;  but 
when  that  American  market  is  not  sufficient  with  its  demands  to 
answer  the  full  supply,  then  the  tendency  is  to  do  what  the 
Senator  admits  we  are  able  to  do — that  is,  to  make  an  article 
"superior  to  and  cheaper  than  similar  articles  produced  abroad." 
But  if  we  are  able  to  do  this,  if  we  are  able  to  produce  articles 
which  are  "  both  superior  to  and  cheaper  than  articles  produced 
abroad,"  for  what  reason  should  we  then  have  any  protective 
tariff  ?  Common  honesty,  fair  play,  equality  between  the  citizens, 
demand,  if  this  be  true,  that  every  temptation  shall  be  given 
for  the  production  of  an  article  that  is  at  once  "  superior  to  and 


PREE  TRADE  OR  PROTECTION.  15'}' 

cheaper  than  "  its  competing  article  ;  and  if  we  are  able  to  pro- 
duce this,  then  any  system  which  tends  to  prevent  the  production 
of  such  an  article  is  unwise,  if  not  immoi'al,  and  ought  at  once  to 
be  changed.  A¥e  agree  with  the  Senator  that  we  are  capable  of 
accomplishing  this  result.  We  have  no  doubt  that,  by  removing 
the  trammels  upon  the  introduction  of  the  foreign  material 
needed,  giving  at  once  to  the  Americam  workman  equal  advan- 
tages with  his  foreign  competitor,  this  could  be  said  of  all 
American  manufactures,  and  it  would  be  demonstrated  that  the 
protective  system  was  a  system  which  inured  only  to  the  benefit, 
and  mat  temporarily,  of  the  monopolies  created  by  it  or  of  the 
classes  who  were  immediately  its  beneficiaries. 

It  is  constantly  claimed  that  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of 
America  have  been  produced  by  this  system  ;  and  yet  when  it  is 
charged  that  it  creates  private  fortunes,  the  charge  is  indignantly 
denied,  and  it  is  alleged  that  of  the  great  fortunes  of  America 
only  one  out  of  fifty  has  been  produced  by  it — that  is,  that  great 
fortunes  in  America  can  be  made  in  the  pi'oportion  of  forty-nine 
to  one  outside  of  the  industries  jjrotected  by  the  tariff;  that  the 
profits  which  arise  from  other  business,  not  within  the  scope  of 
its  protection,  give  to  the  followers  of  those  pursuits  fortunes  in 
the  proportion  of  forty-nine  to  one  given  by  the  tariff.  And 
while  it  is  also  claimed  that  this  tariff  is  necessary  to  the  manu- 
facturing States,  it  is  with  equal  vehemence  alleged  that  it  does 
not  make  the  manufacturing  States,  by  its  protective  duties,  as 
rich  as  those  agricultural  States  which  have  no  immediate  benefit 
from  it.  It  is  a  system,  therefore,  that  directly  benefits  nobody, 
— not  even  those  who  are  immediately  protected, — but  that  indi- 
rectly, by  some  occult  and  mysterious  power,  it  greatly  benefits 
those  who  are  not  protected  by  it.  If  those  States  whose  indus- 
tries are  not  protected  by  the  tariff,  and  those  persons  whoso 
pursuits  are  not  protected  by  its  provisions,  grow  wealthy,  why 
have  a  system  which  does  not  give  equal  advantage  to  those  who 
must  labor  under  its  provisions  ? 

A  great  American  once  said  that  the  richest  legacy  bequeathed 
by  our  Revolutionary  forefathers  was  absolute  free  trade  between 
the  States  ;  that  with  our  race  free  institutions  were  certain  to 
come,  and  that  with  thirteen  colonies  it  was,  beyond  peradvent- 
ure,  impossible  to  create  a  government  much  different  from  that 
created  by  the  Constitution.  But  with  the  opinion  then  prevalent 


168  ^OTH  SIDES  Of  the  TAHiEP  QUESTION. 

of  the  wisdom  of  a  protective  tariff,  it  was,  indeed,  a  marvellous 
prescience  which  inserted  into  that  Constitution  the  provision 
which  absolutely  prohibited  tariffs  between  the  States.  It  is  from 
this  provision  that  a  large  part  of  our  marvellous  growth  has 
come.  We  are  the  recipients,  also,  of  the  fugitives  from  the  tax- 
gatherers  abroad.  Men  have  brought  their  families  here,  not 
merely  that  they  might  live  under  freer  institutions,  but  that  they 
might  escape  the  exactions  which  standing  armies,  class  distinc- 
tions, and  monarchical  government  require  of  the  poor  and  the 
laboring.  With  free  trade  between  our  States,  with  low  taxes, 
and  the  enormous  immigration  which  the  tax-collector  has  driven 
from  Europe  to  our  shores,  we  have  grown  beyond  all  precedent. 

We  will  continue  to  grow  ;  we  will  extend  our  borders  by 
annexation  or  otherwise  ;  we  will  obtain  new  lands ;  we  will 
see  erected  new  cities  ;  we  will  receive  into  our  federation  new 
States ; — and  no  temporary  economic  system,  no  matter  how 
oppressive  and  false,  can  do  more  than  retard  this  development. 
But  that  system  which  was  so  beneficent  between  the  States;  that 
system  which  enabled  Chicago  to  grow  against  the  competition  of 
New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore  ;  which  is  now 
permitting  Denver,  Kansas  City,  Wichita,  San  Francisco,  also  to 
to  grow ;  that  system  which  gives  unhampered  trade  to  95  per 
cent,  of  our  product ;  which  permits  this  to  be  bought  and  sold, 
to  be  transported  from  the  producer  to  the  consumer  and  handled 
by  the  middlemen  of  America  without  trammel  by  legislation,  with- 
out custom-houses,  delays,  vexations,  and  annoyances, — will  give 
to  us  added  wealth  and  increased  power. 

In  the  meantime  the  annoyances,  the  embarrassments,  the 
burdens,  of  our  present  tariff  will  become  better  known  and 
more  grievously  felt.  Restlessness  has  begun  ;  dissatisfaction  is 
wide-spread  ;  inquiry  is  abfoad  among  the  people  ;  power  cannot 
always  be  purchased  by  corrupting  the  ballot-box  ;  and  we  will 
see  victory,  and  that  not  very  far  off.  Then  what  will  be  required 
of  those  who  have  believed  that  the  day  would  come  will  be 
moderation,  prudence,  conservative  change ;  not  revolution,  but 
reformation.  This  will  give  to  American  industries  and  to 
American  commerce  their  just  share  of  the  markets  of  the  world 
and  the  peaceful  domination  of  the  seas  ;  it  will  destroy  the  lobby 
at  Washington  and  restore  to  the  people  the  right  to  select  their 
representatives  in  Congress.  W.  C.  P.  Beeckinridge. 


THE    TARIFF   ON    TRIAL. 

By  Sir  Richard  J.  Cartwright  and 

Thomas  J.  Shearman. 


Sir  Richard  John  Cartwright. 


The  real,  though  not  the  titular,  leader  of  the  Liberal  Opposition  in 
the  Canadian  House  of  Commons  is  the  Hon.  Sir  Richard  John  Cartwright, 
K.  C.  M.  G.,  P.  C,  member  for  South  Oxford.  He  is,  perhaps,  the 
strongest  and  most  influential  figure  among  the  present  "outs"  in  the 
Parliament  of  the  Dominion,  and  a  man  of  keen  and  penetrating  intellect, 
high  ambition,  and  great  force  of  character.  The  Cartwrights  are  one  of 
the  old  historic  families  of  Canada,  and  for  fully  a  century  have  been  asso- 
ciated with  the  city  of  Kingston,  once  the  chief  naval  station  on  Lake 
Ontario,  and  the  Cataraqui  of  the  Id  French  regime.  To  this  family  the 
subject  of  the  present  sketch  belongs.  Sir  Richard  is  the  son  of  the  Rev, 
R,  D.  Cartwrigkt,  Chaplain  to  the  Forces,  Kingston,  Ont.,  and  grandson 
of  the  Hon.  Richard  Cartwright,  a  United  Empire  Loyalist,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  first  Parliament  of  Upper  Canada,  which  met  at  Niagara 
in  1792,  and  continued  to  hold  a  seat  in  that  Assembly  until  his  death  in 
1815.  Sir  Richard  was  born  at  Kingston  December  4, 1835.  In  his  native 
city  he  received  his  early  educatioa,  completing  it  thereafter  at  Trinity 
College,  Dublin,  the  Irish  capital,  we  believe,  being  his  mother's  old  home. 
On  his  return  to  Canada  he  entered  for  a  time  upon  the  study  of  law.  but 
his  own  preference  was  to  become  an  adept  in  finance,  and  with  that  end 
in  view  he  took  to  banking,  and  served  for  some  years  as  director,  and 
subsequently  became  president  of  the  late  Commercial  Bank  of  Canada. 

From  an  early  age  he  begran  to  take  an  interest  in  politics,  the  tradi- 
tions of  his  family  as  well  as  his  own  predilections  leading  him  to  ally 
himself  with  the  Conservative  or  old  Tory  party  in  Canada.  In  1863, 
while  only  in  his  twenty-eighth  year,  he  was  elected  representative  for 
Lennox  and  Addington  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  United  Prov- 
inces of  Upper  and  Lower  Canada,  and  this  seat  he  held  until  confedera- 
tion. When  the  Dominion  was  constituted  he  was  returned  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons  for  his  old  constituency,  Lennox,  and  was 
understood  to  look  forward  to  one  day  entering  the  Cabinet.  In  the 
meanwhile  his  political  views  underwent  a  change,  and  led  him  to  act 
for  a  time  as  an  independent  member  of  the  House  and  subsequently 
to  declare  himself  a  Liberal. 


162  SIR  RICHARD  JOHN  CARTWRIQHT. 

In  IS73,  upon  the  fall  of  the  C :>n33rvative  Ministry  owing  to  the  Pa- 
cific Railway  scandal,  Mr.  Cartwright  accepted  the  portfolio  of  Finance 
in  the  Mackenzie  adoainistration,  and' while  the  Reformers  remained  in 
office  he  acted  as  Finance  Minister  and  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council.  In 
this  capacity  he  visited  England  on  public  business  in  the  years  1874,  1875 
and  1876,  and  throughout  his  tenure  of  office  worked  hard  to  keep  the  fi" 
nancial  expenditure  within  the  revenue  and  to  maintain  the  financial  credit 
of  the  Dominion.  Just  at  this  period  this  was  no  light  task,  for  Confedera- 
tion imposed  heavy  burdens  and  the  country's  expansion  involved  greater 
outlays  than  could  then  be  mat  from  the  national  exchequer.  Hard 
times  were  also  sitting  like  a  nightmare  upon  the  country,  and  the  Fates 
were  obdurate  and  adverse.  To  meet  the  financial  difficulties,  Mr.  Cart- 
wright,  however,  struggled  bravely  ;  but  the  onl}'  possible  resort  was  to 
increased  taxation.  The  tariff  was  readjusted  and  two  and  a  half  per 
cent,  added  to  the  customs  imposts.  This  slight  increase  on  a  moderate 
tariff  (it  had  only  been  fifteen  per  cent.)  was  still  inadequate  to  moet  the 
large  and  increasing  demands  upon  the  Federal  purse,  and  the  Tories  in 
opposition  made  a  furious  onslaught  upon  the  Finance  Minister,  de- 
nounced his  policy,  and  did  much  to  embarrass  and  finally  to  overthrow 
the  Mackenzie  government.  With  its  fall,  Mr.  Cartwright  lost  his  seat 
for  Lenaox,  though  he  was  subsequently  elected  for  one  of  the  Huron 
Ridings. 

On  his  return  to  Parliament  he  passed  with  his  late  colleagues  into 
opposition,  and  since  1878  has  been  the  unflinching  foe  of  Sir  John  Mac- 
donald's  Tory  Administration.  Wiiile  in  opposition  he  has  seen  the  tariff 
duties  rise  successively  from  17^^^  to  almost  double  that  impost.  In 
pursuance  of  the  Tory  policy,  trade  relations  with  the  United  States  are 
discouraged.  Against  the  system.  Sir  Richard  Cartwright  has  launched 
Lis  thunderbolts  both  in  Parliament  and  on  the  stump,  and  with  such 
effect  as  to  give  promise,  at  no  distant  day,  of  a  change  of  govern- 
ment and  the  adopti<;n  of  continental  free  trade  as  the  future  policy 
of  the  Dominion.  Reciprocity  has  at  the  same  time  been  embiaced 
by  Sir  Richard's  party  in  the  House,  and  its  advocacy  is  the  great 
measure  to  which  Canadian  Liberalism  is  now  lending  itself,  and 
likely  to  be  the  main  issue  at  the  next  general  elections.  If  the  meas- 
ure carries  it  will  owe  its  success  to  the  long  and  unwearied  labors 
of  Sir  Richard  Cartwright,  who  has  been  its  ablest  and  most  ardent  advo- 
cate. His  speeches  on  its  behalf  form  a  literature  in  itself,  and  are  char- 
acterized by  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  economical  situation  in  Canada, 
and  by  a  force  and  cogency  of  reasoning  unusual  even  among  public  men. 
Socially  he  is  always  a  gentleman,  and  his  friends  know  him  as  a  man  of 
fine  literary  tastes  and  broad  culture.  In  1879  he  was  created  a  Knight 
Commander  of  the  Order  of  8t.  Michael  and  St.  George.  Since  1883  he 
has  sat  in  Parliament  for  South  Oxford,  n  1859  Sir  Richard  married 
Frances,  eldest  daughter  of  the  late  Colonel  Alex.  Lowe,  H.  E.  I.  C.  S., 
Qf  Cheltenham,  England. 


THE  TARIFF  0^  TRIAL. 


BY     8IE    RICHARD     J.    CARTWRIGHT,    K.C.M.Q.,    AND  THOMAS    G. 

SHEARMAN. 


In  attempting  to  compress  within  the  compass  of  a  few 
pages  anything  like  a  complete  statement  of  the  effect  of  the  pro- 
tective system  upon  a  country  like  Canada,  perhaps  the  most  im- 
portant thing  to  keep  steadily  in  mind  is  this  simple  proposition  : 
that  a  good  or  a  bad  fiscal  system  is,  after  all,  only  one  of  many 
factors  affecting  a  nation's  progress. 

For  instance,  no  man  who  knows  any  thing  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  respective  populations,  and  of  their  environ- 
ments, can  ever  suppose  that  thevery  best  fiscal  system  that  could 
be  devised  would  induce  a  quiet,  contented,  frugal,  unambitious 
people  like  the  French  hahitans  of  the  lower  St.  Lawrence  to  ap- 
ply themselves  to  the  accumulation  of  what  is  ordinarily  called 
wealth  with  anything  like  the  energy  and  success  with  which  a 
keen  and  pushing  people  like  the  former  natives  of  New  England 
are  certain  to  pursue  that  end  in  the  teeth  of  every  obstacle, — 
and  that  without  prejudice  to  the  question  whether,  after  all,  in 
the  long  run,  the  gi'eat  mass  of  the  population  might  not  come 
ultimately  to  enjoy  quite  as  much  happiness,  and  possibly  quite 
as  much  material  comfort,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

All,  therefore,  that  I  can  pretend  to  do  within  the  limits  of 
this  article  is  to  point  out  certain  results  which  have  followed  the 
introduction  of  the  protective  system  into  Canada,  and  which,  in 
my  judgment,  are  due  largely,  if  not  solely,  to  its  influence. 

And  here  I  may  observe  that,  in  forming  an  opinion  of  the 
effects  of  protection  in  Canada,  it  is  necessary  to  remember  that 
Canada  is  a  country  which  is  by  nature  and  circumstances  singu- 
larly ill  fitted  for  the  successful  operation  of  a  protective  system, 
presenting  therein  a  most  complete  contrast  to  the  United  States, 
in  the  case  of  which  the  conditions  are  literally  and  exactly 

reversed. 

H 


164  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  most  hasty  glance  at  the  map  of  North  America,  and  the 
most  siiperticial  acquaintance  with  the  circumstances  of  the  two 
countries,  will  suffice  to  establish  this  point.  Canada  is  a  very 
thinly-peopled  country,  extending,  it  is  true,  over  an  immense 
area,  and  possessing  great  latent  resources  ;  but  it  is  also  one  in 
which  the  several  groups  of  fertile  and  inhabitated,  or  habitable, 
country  all  lie  snbstantially  within  the  same  zone  (i.  e.,  the 
northern  part  of  the  north  temperate  zone);  all  produce  much 
the  same  articles  ;  all  need  to  import  many  things  from  abi'oad  ; 
all  are  separated  from  each  other  by  great  tracts  of  barren  and 
worthless  territory;  all  are  rather  competitors  than  customers  of 
each  other ;  and  all  would  naturally  prefer  to  trade  with  their 
neighbor  to  the  south,  or  with  countries  across  the  ocean,  than 
with  their  own  people.  To  all  this  must  be  added  the  fact  that 
the  population,  besides  being  scattered,  is  so  small  that  it  is  quite 
impossible  to  carry  on  many  lines  of  manufacture  (except  at  a 
ruinous  cost  to  the  consumer)  in  so  contracted  a  market. 

In  the  United  States,  on  the  contrary,  we  have  the  complete 
opposite.  There  we  have  a  very  large  nation,  nearly  equal  in 
mere  numbers  to  any  two  first-class  European  kingdoms,  or, 
rather,  we  have  a  group  of  over  forty  nations  (if  we  look  to  the 
area  they  occupy  and  to  their  general  position),  lying  for  the  most 
part  very  close  to  each  other,  with  no  desert  interval  between ; 
capable  of  producing  within  their  own  territory  well-nigh  every 
article  it  is  possible  to  conceive  or  need;  extending  not  merely 
from  one  ocean  to  the  other,  but  embracing  every  variety  of 
climate  from  the  arctic  to  the  tropical;  in  fact,  forming  pretty 
much  a  complete  world  among  themselves,  and  enjoying-  absolute 
and  complete  free  trade  the  one  with  the  other.  In  such  a 
country,  if  anywhere,  the  evils  of  protection  ought  to  be  reduced 
to  a  minimum;  nay,  it  would  be  a  perfectly  fair  argument  for  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  to  allege  that  the  prosperity  of  the  United 
States  was  due  to  the  perfect  system  of  free  trade  they  have  wisely 
established  among  themselves,  and  not  to  the  shackles  they  have 
allowed  to  be  placed  on  their  natural  liberties  in  dealing  with 
foreign  nations. 

In  any  case  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  success  (if  success  it 
be)  of  the  protective  system  in  such  a  country  affords  no  guaran- 
tee that  it  would  prove  of  advantage  to  one  like  Canada,  though 
there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  main  reason  which 


THE  TARIFF  ON  TRIAL.  166 

influenced  the  majority  of  the  Canadian  electorate  in  adopting  it. 
was  the  example  of  the  United  States. 

This  preliminary  question  being  disposed  of,  it  becomes  my 
duty  to  point  out  how  and  to  what  extent  protection  has  affected 
the  political  and  social  well-being  of  the  people  of  Canada.  Look- 
ing at  the  matter  from  a  politico-economical  stand-point,  the  first 
and  most  obvious  effect  has  been  this  :  up  to  the  date  of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  protection  theory  of  taxation — to  wit,  that  it  is 
possible  by  the  imposition  of  certain  taxes  to  increase  the  collect- 
ive wealth  of  the  nation — the  people  of  Canada  had,  on  the  whole, 
been  a  frugally-minded  people,  submitting,  indeed,  to  a  good  deal 
of  unnecessary  expenditure,  but  doing  so  grumblingly  and  with  a 
strong  and  deep-rooted  conviction  that  all  taxes  were  at  best  a 
necessary  evil,  and  that  it  was  the  plain  duty  of  a  government  to 
be  economical  if  it  could,  and  to  impose  as  few  taxes  as  possible. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable,  and  in  many  ways  one  of  the 
most  important,  results  of  the  protectionist  propaganda  which 
was  preached  very  successfully  in  Canada  in  1877  and  1878,  and 
which  was  actually  reduced  to  practice  in  1879,  was  that  the  good 
old  wholesome  dislike  to  taxation  (and,  consequently,  to  undue 
an  extravagant  expenditure)  was  for  the  time  being  completely 
rooted  up  from  the  minds  of  the  majority.  As  very  often 
happens,  the  indirect  and  secondary  result  of  a  false  theory  is  not 
the  least  mischievous.  In  this  case  it  has  practically  removed  all 
check  on  expenditure  by  the  government. 

Once  imbue  the  minds  of  a  large  section  of  the  people  with 
the  idea  that  wealth  can  be  created  by  imposing  taxes,  and  it  is 
obvious  that  they  have  no  longer  any  reason  for  opposing  the  im- 
position of  new  taxation,  and  that  when  the  government  wants 
money  it  need  only  profess  that  it  desires  to  encourage  new  in- 
dustries, to  find  a  ready  excuse  for  refilling  its  coffers.  The 
present  government  of  Canada  have  not  been  slow  to  learn  and 
profit  by  this  lesson. 

Under  a  system  of  taxation  for  purposes  of  revenue  only,  the 
total  expenditure  of  Canada  for  the  year  1874  was  $23,316,316. 
In  1878,  under  the  same  system,  it  had  increased  to  $23,519,301, 
being  an  increase  of  barely  1203,000  mfoiir  years,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  a  very  large  sum  of  money  had  been  expended  in  the  in- 
terval upon  public  works.  Under  a  system  of  taxation  for  pro- 
tection, the  total  expenditure  of  Canada  for  the  year  1889  w«s 


166  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTIO.'f. 

$36,917,834,  having  increased  by  an  amount  of  $13,398,531  in 
eleven  years.  So  in  1878  the  actual  taxation  of  Canada  was 
$17,841,938,  though,  as  there  was  a  deficit  in  that  year,  the  nec- 
essary taxation  might  be  placed  at  $19,000,000.  In  1889  the 
actual  taxation  was  $30,613,522,  being  an  increase  of  $11,613,522, 
taking  the  necessary  taxation  (so  called)  of  1878  as  a  basis. 

This,  however,  is  very  far  indeed  from  representing  the  real 
amount  of  taxes  taken  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people.  As  every 
intelligent  advocate  of  protection  knows,  under  a  protective  sys- 
tem the  public  must  be  taxed,  in  rerum  naturd,  to  a  very  much 
greater  extent  than  is  represented  by  the  sum  paid  into  the  treas- 
ury. It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  this  with  absolute  accuracy, 
but  enough  is  known  as  to  the  effects  of  protection  in  Canada  to 
make  it  certain  that  the  sum  thus  taken  out  of  the  pockets  of  the 
general  public  is  not  less  than  50  per  cent,  (probably  much  more) 
of  the  revenue  received  by  the  government  from  taxes.  Of  this 
amount  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  large  portion  is  absolutely  wasted 
(i.  e.,  expended  in  making  good  the  loss  incurred  in  carrying  on 
manufactures  under  disadvantageous  conditions),  but  a  large  part 
finds  its  way  into  the  pockets  of  a  favored  few,  for  whose  benefit, 
under  the  protective  system,  the  community  at  large  are  subjected 
to  this  extra  taxation. 

What  all  this  means  as  regards  the  question  of  extravagant  ex- 
penditure may  best  be  understood  by  comparing  the  actual  tax- 
ation and  expenditure  of  Canada  and  the  United  States,  during 
a  period  before  the  latter  were  finally  committed  to  the  protective 
theory  or  were  hampered  with  the  results  of  their  great  civil 
war.  The  comparison  is  instructive  in  more  ways  than  one,  and 
to  make  it  more  complete  I  will  take,  first,  a  single  year  and  then  a 
decade. 

In  1845  the  population  of  the  United  States  was  (by  estimate) 20,000,000 

The  taxes  of  the  United  States  were f27,531,630 

Tiie  total  expenditure  was 122,935,828 

In  1889  the  population  of  Canada  was  perhaps 4.800,000 

The  taxes  of  Canada  were $30,613,522 

The  total  expenditure  was $36,917,854 

In  the  decade  from  January  1, 1840  to  January  1, 1850.  the  average  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States  was     5»,000,000 

The  taxes  of  the  United  States  were    1224,504,499* 

The  expenditures  were 1306,429,957 

(Includes  Mexican  War.) 
In  the  decade  from  1879  to  1889  the  average  population  of  Canada  was 

»by  estimate) 4.500,000 

The  taxes  of  Canada  were $262,812,578 

The  expenditures  were $320,600,134 

(Not  Including  sums  on  capital  account.) 

*  A4ding  $7,000,000  for  half  year  of  1843. 


TSBi  TARIFF  OJSt  TRtAL.  167 

From  these  last  items  may  be  deducted  a  sum  of  $40,000,000  paid 
as  subsidies  to  the  several  provinces  (although  in  strictness  it 
should  be  pointed  out  that  the  United  States  have  many  expend- 
itures for  which  Canada  has  no  equivalent);  but  giving  Canada 
the  benefit  of  this,  we  arrive  at  this  singular  result :  that  the 
actual  taxation  of  Canada,  with  a  population  averaging  4,500,000, 
during  a  period  of  ten  years  is  barely  $2,000,000  less  than  that 
of  the  United  States  on  an  average  population  of  20,000.000,  and 
the  expenditures  are  in  proportion. 

Comment  is  hardly  necessary,  nor,  indeed,  does  space  permit 
me  to  point  out  the  enormous  mischiefs  which  result  in  a  young 
and  poor  country  from  absorbing  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  earn- 
ings of  the  people,  in  defraying  the  charges  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, as  is  now  being  taken  in  Canada.  All  that  I  Avill  now 
say  is  that,  assuming  that  50  per  cent,  should  be  added  to  the 
nominal  amount  of  the  taxes  to  represent  the  real  sums  of  taxation 
on  the  people,  the  sum  total  so  taken  in  Canada  between  1879 
and  1889  is  not  less  than  $393,000,000,  and  in  all  probability  is 
very  much  more. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that,  as  the  present  annual  taxa 
tion  of  Canada  is  $30,613,522,  the  real  taxation,  on  the  above  hy- 
pothesis, is  over  $45,000,000  per  annum,  without  taking  municipal 
taxes  into  account.  This  means  a  burden  on  the  people  out  of 
all  proportion  to  the  benefits  they  receive  from  the  government, 
and  is  a  most  serious  drag  on  progress. 

Unfortunately,  there  is  a  yet  darker  shade  to  the  picture. 
What  the  result  may  have  been  in  other  countries  I  cannot  say, 
but  in  Canada  (over  and  above  the  extravagant  expenditure  above 
referred  to)  one  most  important  consequence  of  the  introduction 
of  the  protective  system  has  been,  at  the  same  time,  to  make 
provision  for  a  large  and  permanent  corruption  fund  to  be  applied 
with  the  effect  and  the  regularity  of  a  machine  to  debauching 
the  press  and  the  electorate  as  occasion  serves. 

It  is  probable  that  this  result  is  inherent  in  the  system. 
Speaking  with  knowledge,  I  say  deliberately  that  I  can  conceive 
no  more  effectual  method  of  installing  and  intrenching  corrup- 
tion in  the  politics  of  any  country  than  to  give  a  large  number 
of  active,  energetic  business  men,  frequently  persons  possessed  of 
great  wealth,  and  almost  always  having  a  large  control  of  money, 
a  direct  pecuniary  interest  in  controlling  legislation  and  in  sup- 


16g  botB  sides  Of  tMe  tariff  questio.^. 

porting  any  particular  political  party.  Of  course  tLey  will  do  it, 
and  there  is  but  one  way  in  which  they  can  do  it.  Being  sub- 
sidized, they  must  subsidize  in  return.  It  is  quite  impossible  to 
pause  to  point  out  the  innumerable  ways  in  which  this  corrupt 
system  works  for  evil  at  all  times  and  periods  ;  but  I  will  give  one 
notable  example.  Shortly  before  one  of  our  general  elections  the 
present  Premier  of  the  Dominion,  Sir  John  Macdonald,  being 
pressed  for  funds,  deliberately  summoned  some  eighty  or  ninety 
of  tbe  principal  protected  manufacturers  in  Canada  to  meet  him 
at  the  Queen's  Hotel  in  Toronto,  and  then  and  there,  in  good  set 
phrase,  told  them  that,  as  the  government  had  helped  them  to 
enrich  themselves  at  the  public  expense,  they,  in  return,  must 
help  the  government  to  keep  in  place  ;  nor  did  he  dismiss  them 
till  they  had  assessed  themselves  in  a  large  amount  for  the  pur- 
pose of  providing  a  fund  wherewith  to  corrupt  the  electors  of  the 
Dominion. 

From  various  causes  this  practical  effect  of  protection  is  more 
easily  traced  and  is  probably  pushed  to  greater  lengths  in  Canada 
than  it  is  in  most  other  countries;  but  it  may  fairly  be  laid  down 
that  wherever  such  things  are  done,  and  are  known  to  be  done, 
without  involving  the  instant  political  ruin  of  the  criminals, 
government  has  ceased  to  be  an  engine  for  promoting  the  well- 
being  of  the  people,  and  is  at  best  but  a  convenient  apparatus  for 
dividing  the  spoil. 

One  other  effect  deserves  special  notice.  It  is  true,  no  doubt, 
that  there  are  several  causes  now  at  work,  all  tending  to  promote 
the  concentration  of  large  fortunes  in  the  hands  of  a  few  indi- 
viduals ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  in  Canada  this  tendency  has 
been  very  greatly  intensified  by  the  operation  of  the  protective 
system  ;  and  whatever  else  it  has  or  has  not  done,  it  has  aided 
powerfully  in  the  displacement  and  transference  of  wealth  from 
one  section  of  the  community  to  the  other. 

This  tendency  is  manifest  most  of  all  in  the  province  of  On- 
tario, by  far  the  wealthiest  and  most  populous  province  of  the 
whole  Dominion,  containing  very  nearly  one  half  the  entire  popu- 
lation, and  contributing  at  least  three-fifths  of  the  entire  revenue. 
Socially  and  economically  considered,  the  condition  of  Ontario 
prior  to  the  introduction  of  protection  was  one  of  a  highly  favora- 
ble character,  and  well  suited  to  develop  the  best  qualities  of  its 
people.    The  number  of  considerable  fc-tunes  was,  indeed,  small, 


THE  TARIFF  ON  TRIAL.  169 

but  the  diffusion  of  wealth  and  the  general  well-being  of  the  entire 
community  was  very  great.  In  fact,  Ontario  at  that  time  might 
have  been  fairly  described  as  a  country  mainly  occupied  by  prosper- 
ous yeomen  owning  their  own  farms,  and  studded  with  a  very  un- 
usual number  of  small  but  thriving  towns,  which  ministered  to 
the  wants  of  the  agricultural  class. 

To-day,  after  eleven  years'  experience  of  protection,  and 
largely,  though  possibly  not  altogether,  in  consequence  of  it,  the 
picture  is  exactly  reversed.  There  are  probably  ten  times  as 
many  large  individual  fortunes  (measured  by  the  Canadian  stand- 
ard). One  or  two  large  towns  have  grown  and  thriven,  and  have 
absorbed  into  themselves  almost  the  whole  increase  in  the  prov- 
ince in  which  they  are  situated  ;  but  the  condition  of  the  vast 
majority  of  the  once-thriving  small  towns  and  villages 
is  that  of  utter  stagnation.  What  is  even  more  im- 
portant, the  actual  selling  value  of  every  farm  in  Ontario 
(and  probably  in  all  Canada,  very  new  settlements  ex- 
cepted) has  been  seriously  depreciated,  and  a  very  large  number 
of  their  proprietors  are  hopelessly  mortgaged;  in  fact,  have  been 
reduced  from  the  status  of  independent  yeomen  to  a  position  very 
much  worse  than  that  of  ordinary  tenants-at-will,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  to  all  intents  and  purposes  insolvent  debtors  without  any 
reasonable  prospect  of  extricating  themselves  from  their  entangle- 
ments. Simultaneously  with  this  reduction  in  the  values  of  farm 
lands,  and  the  enormous  increase  of  indebtedness  on  the  part  of 
the  farmers,  an  almost  complete  stop  has  been  put  to  the  settle- 
ment of  the  province. 

Ontario  has  an  area  of  180,000  square  miles,  and  though  it  is 
not  to  be  pretended  that  the  whole,  or  even  perhaps  one -half,  of 
this  immense  territory  is  fit  for  agricultural  purposes,  it  is  sim- 
ply absurd  to  contend  that  anything  like  the  whole  available  area 
has  been  occupied,  much  less  brought  into  cultivation.  Never- 
theless, while  up  to  the  time  at  which  Canada  adopted  protection 
the  number  of  persons  engaged  in  agriculture  kept  steadily  grow- 
ing from  year  to  year  at  a  very  respectable  rate  per  annum, 
during  the  last  decade  (if  the  municipal  statistics  of  Ontario  are 
to  be  relied  on)  the  rural  population  has  been  all  but  absolutely 
stationary.  Out  of  the  ninety-two  constituencies  into  whicn  On- 
tario is  divided,  nine  are  exclusively  urban.  Of  the  remaining 
oighty-three  divisions,  fifty-three  repcrt  that  in  them   the  ruial 


170  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION 

population  has  positively  retrograded  during  the  hist  ten  years, 
while  of  the  other  thirty,  hardly  half  a  dozen  report  a  growth  of 
the  rural  population  equal  to  the  natural  increase  during  that 
interval.  This,  too,  iu  spite  of  the  fact  that  a  very  large  number 
of  immigrants  are  alleged  to  have  settled  in  the  Dominion  (prin- 
cipally in  Ontario)  during  that  period,  and  that  many  thousands 
of  miles  of  new  railroads  have  been  constructed,  by  which  a  very 
large  extent  of  virgin  territory  has  been  made  accessible  for 
settlement. 

The  statistics  of  the  other  provinces  are  not  suflBciently  per- 
fect to  allow  me  to  speak  with  equal  positiveness  of  their  condi- 
tion ;  but  no  man  who  knows  anything  of  Canada  can  doubt  that, 
as  regards  the  older  provinces  at  any  rate,  what  is  true  of  Ontario 
is,  d  fortiori,  true  of  the  rural  population  elsewhere. 

Incidentally  it  may  be  observed  that  the  smaller  towns  and 
villages  as  a  rule  report  the  same  state  of  things  ;  the  population 
is  for  the  most  part  stationary  or  retrograding,  and  only  in  a  very 
few  instances  does  the  growth  exceed  the  natural  increase. 

To  put  the  matter  briefly,  the  resnlts  of  the  introduction  of 
the  protective  system  in  Canada  have  been  : 

1.  To  remove  all  check  on  the  expenditure  of  the  government 
and  to  encourage  a  reckless  extravagance  on  their  part,  which  has 
resulted  in  an  annual  expenditure  for  federal  purposes  of  nearly 
50  per  cent,  more  (after  making  all  deductions)  for  a  population 
of  less  than^ve  millions  than  the  sum  required  by  the  United 
States  for  the  like  objects  when  their  population  was  over  twenty 
millions. 

2.  To  systematize  and  intensify  the  tendency  (always  so  peril- 
ous to  the  welfare  of  representative  governments)  to  use  corrupt 
means  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  press  and  the  electorate, 
and  to  make  it  the  direct  pecuniary  interest  of  a  very  active  and 
influential  class  to  provide  a  regular  and  large  fund  for  such 
purposes. 

3.  To  aggravate  and  accelerate  the  tendency  to  accumulate 
large  fortunes  in  few  hands,  and  at  the  same  time  to  increase  the 
indebtedness  and  depreciate  the  value  of  the  property  owned  by 
the  mass  of  the  community,  more  especially  in  the  case  of  the 
agricultural  class. 

4.  To  favor  the  growth  of  a  few  large  towns  at  the  expense  of 
the  smaller  ones  and  of   the  rural  population,  which  latter  has 


THE  TARIFF  ON  TRIAL.  171 

been  reduced  to  an  absolutely  stationary  condition  over  very  large 
portions  of  the  Dominion,  in  spite  of  a  large  (alleged)  immigra- 
tion and  of  the  fact  that  much  new  territory  has  been  thrown 
open. 

These,  so  far,  have  been  the  results  in  Canada  in  the  period 
from  1879  to  1890,  and  if  they  have  been  more  marked  than  in 
other  cases,  the  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  already 
alluded  to,  that  for  a  variety  of  reasons  Canada  is  singularly  ill 
adapted  for  carrying  out  a  scheme  of  protection,  and  was  sin- 
gularly unwise  in  allowing  herself  to  be  induced  to  copy  the 
United  States. 

If  it  be  inquired,  further,  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  people 
of  Canada  continue  to  tolerate  such  a  system,  the  answer  is  ob- 
vious. In  the  first  place,  as  every  man  of  any  practical  experi- 
ence in  politics  well  knows,  it  is  always  a  matter  of  great  diffi- 
culty to  overthrow  a  well-organized  system  of  corruption  which 
has  identified  itself  with  a  great  political  party,  and  has  had  the 
wisdom  to  secure  the  services  of  a  moiety  of  the  press. 

In  the  next  place,  the  bare  issue  of  protection  versus  free  trade, 
or  a  tariff  for  revenue,  is  never  presented  alone  to  the  people,  but 
is  always  complicated  by  being  intermixed  .with  many  other  ques- 
tions, perhaps  especially  in  Canada.  Then,  again,  it  takes  time 
for  the  consequences  of  any  great  fiscal  change  to  develop  them- 
selves, and  the  proof  of  much  that  has  been  stated  above  has 
only  been  obtained  within  a  recent  period. 

Lastly,  an  immense  and  continuous  emigration  of  those  very 
persons  (i.  e.,  of  the  younger  and  more  enterprising  part  of  the 
community)  who  would  have  been  most  disposed  to  assist  in  over- 
throwing these  corrupt  combinations  has  been  going  on  from 
Canada  with  very  little  cessation  for  a  good  many  years. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  under  such  circumstances,  the 
mere  fact  that  a  protectionist  goverment  have  remained  in  power 
in  Canada  for  a  certain  term  of  years  affords  very  little  evidence 
indeed  that  they  have  governed  in  the  true  interests  of  the 
larger  portion  of  the  community. 

Richard  J.  Cartwriqht. 


The  United  Question  Clubs  of  Massachusetts  recently  ad- 
dressed to  several  public  men  a  series  of  questions  based  on  the 
articles  by  Mr.  Blaine  and  ^fr.  Gladsto.ie  in  the  January  number 


179  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

of  The  North  American  Review.  Among  the  replies  received 
was  the  following : 

As  your  inquiries  all  relate  to  points  suggested  by  the  arguments 
of  Mr.  Blaine  in  reply  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  permit  me  to  say,  in  gen- 
eral, that  Mr.  Blaine's  article  shows  his  accustomed  ingenuity,  by 
his  avoidance  of  all  the  real  issues  between  free  trade  and  pro- 
tection, whether  raised  by  Mr.  Gladstone  or  any  one  else,  and  that 
the  whole  line  of  his  article  reminds  me  forcibly  of  the  advice  of 
an  experienced  lawyer,  whose  aim  was  simply  a  present  success, 
without  the  slightest  regard  to  substantial  justice — "  Never  reply 
to  any  of  your  opponent's  real  arguments ;  but  raise  a  new  line  of 
discussion,  which  will  cause  the  jury  to  forget  entirely  everything 
which  your  opponent  has  said." 

Replying  now  to  your  questions,  in  their  order  : 

1.  With  reference  to  Mr.  Blaine's  statement  that  navigation  is 
**  one  interest  which  England  has  protected  steadily  and  deter- 
minedly, regardless  of  consistency  and  regardless  of  expense," 
payment  made  strictly  and  in  good  faith  for  the  purpose  of  mail 
service  alone  is  not,  in  my  judgment,  a  matter  of  protection  or  in 
any  way  connected  with  a  protective  policy.  I  have  no  very 
special  knowledge  as  to  what  percentage  of  the  total  tonnage  of 
British  steamships  receives  payment  for  mail  service,  but  I  do 
know  that  it  is  very  small.  Very  few  British  ships  of 
any  kind  receive  such  payments  ;  and,  as  to  the  vast 
majority  of  British  vessels,  whether  steam  or  sailing 
ships,  they  really  suffer  by  reason  of  the  payments 
which  are  made  to  the  few  mail  vessels  by  the  British  government, 
so  far  as  those  payments  are  at  all  in  excess  of  the  strict  commer- 
cial value  of  the  mail  services  rendered.  It  obvious  that  if  ten 
steamships  are  running  between  the  same  ports,  and  one  of  them 
receives  anything  which  in  fact  amounts  to  a  subsidy,  this  enables 
that  steamship  to  carry  freight  at  a  lower  rate  than  the  other  nine 
can  afford  to  do,  and  so  gives  to  it  an  unfair  advantage,  to  their 
great  prejudice.  So  far,  therefore,  from  British  payments  for 
mail  service  amounting  to  a  protection  of  British  navigation, 
taken  as  a  whole,  their  effect  is  the  very  reverse. 

2.  Mr.  Blaine's  statements  with  regard  to  steel  rails  only  tend 
to  prove  that  the  duty  on  these  rails  could  be  entirely  abolished, 
without  the  slightest  injury  to  our  domestic  manufactures.  This 
country  has  paid  to  the  domestic  manufacturers  of  steel  rails 


THE  TARIFF  O.V  TRIAL.  iTd 

much  more  than  $200,000,000  in  excess  of  the  price  which  was 
paid  for  similar  rails  used  by  European  railroads.  The  actual'cost 
to  the  country  at  large  for  thus  artificially  fostering  the  steel-rail 
industry,  even  after  allowing  for  the  advance  in  price  which 
doubtless  would  have  taken  place  in  England  if  we  had  made  a 
larger  demand  upon  its  manufacturers,  in  the  absence  of  a  tariff, 
cannot  be  estimated  at  less  than  $150,000,000.  At  the  lowest 
rate  of  interest  paid  by  business  men  in  this  country,  the  annual 
interest  on  this  sum  would  suffice  to  pay  all  the  wages  of  all  the 
persons  employed  in  the  steel-rail  mills  in  the  United  States 
from  the  beginning  of  their  work  to  the  end  of  the  next  twenty 
years. 

3.  Mr.  Blaine's  list  of  articles  in  which  American  manufact- 
urers can  successfully  compete  in  Canada  with  English  manu- 
facturers is  really  a  complete  refutation  of  his  whole  argument ; 
because  it  shows  that,  even  with  our  heavy  duties  upon  the  raw 
materials  of  these  manufactures,  we  are,  nevertheless,  able  to  com- 
pete successfully  with  England,  and,  therefore,  that  there  ie 
no  need  whatever  of  maintaining  high  duties  upon  similar 
articles  imported  from  abroad,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  our  domestic  manufacturers  to  have  a  monopoly 
of  the  home  market  and  to  charge  to  American  con- 
sumers more  than  they  do  to  Canadian  consumers  ;  and, 
because,  moreover,  the  ver^'  nature  of  these  articles  shows  that 
the  greater  the  amount  of  skilled  labor  put  into  any  article, 
the  greater  is  the  advantage  of  manufacturers  in  the  United 
States  over  English  manufacturers  of  that  article.  All  the 
articles  mentioned  by  Mr.  Blaine  as  largely  exported  from  America 
are  articles  in  which  a  large  amount  of  skilled  labor  is  employed. 
Although  the  daily  wages  are  higher  in  America  than  in  Europe, 
the  actual  cost  of  labor  is  really  much  less  with  us,  owing  to  the 
superior  skill  of  our  workmen.  If  the  duties  were  taken  off  the 
raw  materials  of  these  manufactures,  we  should  clearly  be  in  a  far 
better  position  to  compete  with  Europe. 

4.  You  ask  :  "Is  Mr.  Blaine  right  in  assigning  as  the  cause 
of  the  panic  of  1857  the  tariff  of  1846,  or  as  the  cause  of  the  panic 
of  1837  the  tariff  of  1833  ?"  To  a  certain  extent  he  is  ;  but  for 
precisely  the  opposite  reasons  from  those  which  he  assigns.  Under 
both  of  those  tariffs  a  large  surplus  had  accumulated  in  the 
Treasury,  proving  that  those  tariffs  were  far  too  high,  as  in  fact 


174  dOtb  sides  of  the!  tariff  qvestton. 

thej  were.  This  surplus,  which  kept  on  growing  from 
1833  to  1837,  was  undoubtedly  the  one  great  cause 
of  the  panic  of  1837  and  of  years  of  subsequent  disaster.  Money 
had  piled  up  in  the  Treasury,  for  which  the  Federal  govern- 
ment had  no  honest  use,  and  which  it  eventually  distributed 
among  the  States,  early  in  1837,  after  having  kept  it  on  deposit 
for  some  years  with  the  State  banks.  The  State  banks  used  these 
deposits  as  a  means  of  inflating  the  currency  and  giving  an  enor- 
mous stimulus  to  land  speculation.  When  the  surplus  was  dis- 
tributed among  the  States,  in  March,  1837,  the  government  was 
obliged  to  call  it  in  from  the  banks ;  and  immediately  all  the 
banks  went  to  pieces,  and  the  speculators  were  ruined.  The 
government  succeeded  in  recovering  its  funds  and  distributing 
them  among  the  States,  which,  however,  had  no  good  use  for 
them,  and  therefore  squandered  them  in  enterprises  which  proved 
a  total  loss ;  and  this  caused  the  second  panic  of  1839. 
But  the  common  pretence  that  the  tariff  in  May,  1837,  when  the 
panic  took  place,  was  a  low  tariff,  or  a  revenue  tariff,  is  entire- 
ly untrue.  On  the  contrary,  the  tariff  during  the  whole  period 
from  1832  to  the  end  of  the  year  1837  was  very  much  higher  than 
the  Morrill  tariff  of  1861,  to  which  Protectionists  now  attribute  all 
the  prosperity  of  our  country.  The  duties  on  pig-iron  and  on 
most  of  the  leading  articles  of  domestic  manufacture  were  not,  in 
fact,  as  low  as  they  are  now.  The  panic  of  1837,  therefore,  took 
place  under  one  of  the  highest  tariffs  ever  known  in  the  history 
of  our  country ;  and  it  was  in  a  very  large  degree  caused  by  the 
protective  system. 

The  panic  of  1857  was  not  in  the  least  caused  by  the  Jownesa 
of  the  duties  under  the  tariff  of  1846.  On  the  contrary,  those 
duties,  although  much  lower  than  the  duties  now  existing,  were 
so  high  as  to  cause  again  the  accumulation  of  a  large  surplus  in 
the  Treasury,  for  which  the  government  could  find  no  honest 
use.  The  great  prosperity  of  the  country  led  to  a  renewal  of 
land  speculation  on  a  large  scale,  which  ended,  as  it  always  does, 
in  blocking  the  business  of  the  country  and  undermining  banks 
and  trust  companies.  Meanwhile,  masses  of  gold,  which  were 
needed  for  the  circulating  medium  of  the  people,  were  locked  up 
in  the  sub-treasury  ;  and  when  confidence  was  shaken  and  de- 
positors sought  payment  in  gold,  the  banks  were  unable  to  pay, 
because  the  government  had  locked  up  the  gold.     To  this  extent. 


THE  TARIFF  ON  TRIAL.  175 

but  in  no  other  way,  the  tariff  of  1846  had  some  influence  in 
aggravating  the  panic  in  1867.  Bvery  tariff  helps  to  bring  about 
commercial  disasters. 

5.  With  regard  to  the  condition  of  manufacturing  and  other 
industries  at  the  close  of  the  protective  tariff  in  England,  which 
was,  practically,  in  1842,  when  all  protection,  except  to  agri- 
culture, was  substantially  abandoned,  Mr.  Blaine's  assertion,  "that 
at  that  moment  Great  Britain  had  reason  to  feel  supremely  con- 
tent," is  supremely  absurd.  In  1842  the  manufacturers  of  Great 
Britain  were  in  desperate  straits  ;  the  employers  making  no  profits 
and  the  workmen  starving.  Even  assuming,  as  Mr.  Blaine  does, 
that  the  protective  tariff  extended  to  1846  (which  is  true  as  to 
agriculture  only),  the  people  of  Great  Britain  were  suffering 
severely  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  crops  and  the  limitation 
of  their  general  industries,  while  the  people  of  Ireland  were  abso- 
lutely starving  from  famine.  There  never  was  a  moment  at  which 
Great  Britain  had  less  reason  to  feel  content  than  at  that  time. 

England  renounced  her  protective  system  because  her  people 
then  recovered  their  senses,  after  a  long  period  of  delusion. 
Every  successive  measure  looking  towards  free  trade  proved  highly 
beneficial  to  the  whole  people  of  the  country.  Some  ■  steps  in 
that  direction  were  taken  between  1826  and  1846,  but  they 
were  slight  and  small ;  and,  accordingly,  England's  development 
as  a  manufacturing  nation  was  very  slow  during  that  period.  Her 
development  was  rapid  after  1846  ;  still  more  rapid  after  the 
further  clearing  out  of  the  protective  duties  in  1853  ;  but  most 
rapid  of  all  after  the  entire  destruction  of  the  last  shred  of  pro-' 
tection  in  1860. 

6.  You  ask  if  Mr.  Blaine  is  *•  right  in  assuming  that,  if  we  had 
bought  our  steel  rails  of  Great  Britain,  it  would  have  been  neces- 
sary to  pay  for  them  in  gold."  Clearly  he  is  not  right.  It  can 
never  be  "necessary"  to  do  anything  impossible;  and  it  is  and 
always  has  been  impossible  for  our  country  or  any  other  to  pay 
for  any  very  large  proportion  of  its  importations  in  gold.  This 
country  is  able  to  pay  a  larger  proportion  of  gold  than  any  other 
country  for  the  simple  reason  that  we  produce  more  than  any 
other.  But  our  annual  production  of  gold  is  not  enough  to  pay 
for  one-tenth  part  of  our  present  imports.  If,  therefore,  we  had 
bought  our  steel  rails  abroad,  we  should  have  paid  for  them  in 
some  production  of  our  own  country  other  than  gold,    which 


176  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

\rould  have  been  made  by  American  workmen  and  paid  for  at 
American  rates  of  wages. 

7.  Your  seventh  question  I  pass,  as  it  merely  relates  to  Mr. 
Blaine's  consistency,  which  he  can  be  left  to  settle. 

8.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  before  the  United  States  of 
America  had  any  tariff,  and  before  there  were  any  United  States, 
manufactures  had  so  far  developed  in  these  colonies  as  to  com- 
pete successfully  with  the  manufactures  of  Great  Britain  in  sev- 
eral branches.  Under  the  old  colonial  governments,  when  the  laws 
of  Great  Britain  were  framed,  as  was  supposed,  for  the  especial 
benefit  of  British  merchants  and  manufacturers,  and  when  the 
American  colonies  were  strictly  forbidden  to  do  anything  which 
would  interfere  with  their  profits,  three-fourths  of  all  articles 
used  on  American  soil  were  made  by  Americans  at  home,  while 
considerable  quantities  of  pig  iron  were  made  in  America  and  ex- 
ported to  England. 

9.  High  wages  in  the  United  States  have  probably  some 
influence  upon  wages  in  other  countries,  but  comparatively  little. 
Wages  cannot  advance  in  any  country  where  the  productive  power 
of  laborers  does  not  advance.  The  great  reason  why  wages  have 
advanced  in  both  England  and  the  United  States  is  that  the 
productive  power  of  workmen  in  both  countries  has  increassd, 
their  standard  of  living  has  advanced,  and  this  in  turn  has  given 
them  greater  health,  strength,  skill,  and  power  of  combination. 

10.  As  the  price  of  manufactures  has  declined  more  rapidly 
in  countries  where  protection  does  not  exist  than  in  America, 

"where  protection  does  exist,  it  is  very  clear  that  Mr.  Blaine  is 
wrong  in  assuming  that  protection  has  brought  down  prices.  He 
assumes  that  protection  has  built  up  American  manufactures ; 
but  the  fact  is  that  protection  has  killed  more  manufactures  than 
it  has  helped.  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  protection  that  it 
should  do  this,  and  it  never  can  do  anything  else.  No  doubt 
some  few  branches  of  industry  flourish  more  largely  in  this  coun- 
try than  they  would  do  in  the  absence  of  a  tax  upon  the  people 
to  support  them ;  but  they  only  do  this  by  extinguishing  other 
and  more  valuable  industries,  and  thus  compelling  people  who  are 
deprived  of  their  natural  means  of  living  to  work  in  the  pro- 
tected lines  of  manufacture  in  order  to  get  a  living  at  all. 

Thomas  G.  Shearman. 


THE    VALUE     OF    PROTECTION. 
By  the  Hon.  W.   McKinley,  Jr. 


.:^^ 


Hon.  Wm.  McKinley,  Jr. 


This  eminent  man  who,  in  the  interest  of  tariff  legislation,  has  figured 
so  prominently  of  late  before  the  entire  country,  was  bom  at  Niles,  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  February  26, 1844. 

Scarcely  had  he  attained  his  seventeenth  year  when  the  war  of  the  re- 
bellion broke  out,  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  called  upon 
to  espouse  the  cause  of  either  Unionism  or  Secession,  to  aid  in  the  mam- 
tenance  of  the  present  system  of  government,  or  consent  to  the  severance 
of  ties,  political  and  otherwise,  which  had  bound  Americans  together 
for  year  . 

An  ardent  Unionist,  young  McKinley  enlisted  in  the  Twenty-third 
Ohio  Volunteer  Infantry.  This  corps  was  composed  of  some  of  the  finest 
men  the  loyal  State  of  Ohio  ever  sent  to  the  front.  So  distinguished  was 
he  for  bravery,  so  faithful  in  the  performance  of  his  duties,  and,  withal, 
such  a  favorite  with  his  comrades,  that  in  September,  1865,  when 
peace  once  more  settled  upon  the  nation,  he  was  honorably  mustered  out 
as  a  Captain  of  the  very  regiment  in  which  he  had  enlisted  as  a  private 
soldier,  and  could  also  claim  the  additional  rank  of  Brevet-Major. 

Shortly  afterwards,  having  embraced  the  profession  of  the  law,  he  be- 
came the  prosecuting  attorney  for  Stark  Coimty,  Ohio,  which  office  he 
filled  with  marked  ability  during  1869-71. 

Major  McKinley's  record  as  a  congressman  is  a  brilliant  one.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  forty-fifth,  forty-sixth,  forty-seventh,  forty-eighth, 
forty-ninth,  fiftieth  and  fifty-first  CJongresses,  in  all  of  which  he  was  noted 
for  a  strict  adherence  to  the  principles  ol  his  party,  and  for  his  close  iden- 
tification with  Republican  measures.  In  theory  a  stanch  protectionist,  he 
has  lost  no  opportunity  to  strive  to  impress  upon  all  with  whom  he  came 
into  contact  his  belief  in  the  benificent  workings  of  this  particular  system. 
By  tongue  and  pen  he  has  advocated  his  earnest  assertion  that  protection 
brings  the  largest  libeity  to  the  masses,  the  largest  independence  to  the 
workingman,  comforts  and  more  refining  environments  to  the  family,  and 
is  the  highest  incentive  to  manual  and  intellectual  effort.  Countless  days 
of  active  and  painstaking  labor  have  been  given  freely  to  the  collecting 
of  important  statistics,  and  to  the  hearing  of  the  arguments  of  nunaberlesg 
committees  representing  every  br^cb  of  industry  and  trade. 

12  •       -...^ 


180  BON.  WM.  McKINLEY,  JR. 

The  recent  passage  of  the  bill  with  which  his  name  has  been  so  in- 
dissolubly  linked  has  directed  towards  him  the  attention  of  the  civilized 
world.  Scarcely  a  single  foreign  publication  of  note  but  has  made  this 
measure  the  subject  of  profound  and  searching  criticism,  while  at  home 
the  'fentire  press  has  devoted  to  it  an  attention  such  as  was  never  before 
accorded  to  a  congressional  enactment. 

Major  McKinley  claims  as  his  residence  the  thriving  town  of  Canton, 
Ohio.  Personally  he  is  one  of  the  most  agreeable  of  men.  Polished  and 
courteous  in  manner,  fluent  in  speech,  easy  of  approach,  he  is  naturally 
calculated  to  win  confidence  and  allegiance.  Scarcely  yet  in  the  prime  of 
life,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  he  has  many  more  years  to  devote  to  the 
service  of  his  country. 


THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION. 

BY    THE    HON.     WILLIAM    M'KINLEY,    JR.,    REPRESENTATIVE    IN 
CONGRESS  FROM   OHIO. 


We  shall  have  tariffs  so  long  as  we  have  a  government.  We  can 
only  dispense  with  them  by  resorting  to  direct  taxation,  and  it  is 
hardly  probable  that  the  people  of  this  country  will  ever  consent 
to  that  system  exclusively  for  raising  the  needed  revenues  of  the 
government.  Whatever  may  be  our  opinions  of  either  a  "  tariff 
for  revenue  only"  or  a  tariff  for  revenue  coupled  with"  protection," 
the  great  majority  of  our  people  will  probably  always  prefer  the 
one  or  the  other  for  raising  revenue  to  taxing  directly  our  own 
products,  our  own  industries,  and  our  own  people.  The  govern- 
ment inaugurated  the  tariff  system  in  its  first  revenue  bill,  and 
no  considerable  party  in  this  country  has  ever  sought  to  change  it. 

In  the  discussion  of  these  theories  of  external  taxation  we  are 
prone  to  forget  that  the  one  or  the  other  is  a  necessity.  No 
government  can  be  administered  without  an  assured  annual  income, 
and  there  is  no  way  of  securing  this  income  save  by  resorting  to 
the  taxing  power  conferred  upon  Congress  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  It  may  be  an  evil,  but  if  so,  it  is  a  necessary 
one,  and  inseparable  from  the  existence  of  government. 

It  requires  about  $400,000,000  annually  to  meet  the  fiscal  re- 
quirements of  the  government.  That  is  the  condition  which  con- 
fronts us.  The  way  to  raise  this  money  with  the  least  burden 
upon  the  people  is  the  problem  of  the  statesman  and  legislator. 
It  would  not  do  in  time  of  peace  to  issue  the  notes  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  thus  create  a  charge  upon  the  people,  making  no  pro- 
vision for  their  payment.  It  would  not  do  to  restore  the  internal- 
revenue  system  as  it  prevailed  through  the  war  and  for  some 
years  subsequent  thereto,  when  everything  was  taxed — every  tool 
of  trade,  every  article  of  commerce,  every  legal  document,  every 
check  or  note  or  instrument  of  writing,  every  profession,  every 


182  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

income.  The  people  would  not  stand  that  long.  They  bore  it 
patiently  and  patriotically  under  a  great  national  necessity. 
They  bore  it  that  the  government  might  be  preserved  and  its 
institutions  continued,  just  as  they  had  borne  similar  taxation  at 
two  other  periods  of  our  history  which  were  similar  in  their 
necessities. 

It  must  be  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  largest  share  of 
the  needed  income  must  be  raised  by  tariff  taxation  or  import 
duties.  Indeed,  the  predominating  sentiment  of  the  country  is 
that  the  whole  of  it  should  be  provided  in  that  manner.  In 
answer  to  this  sentiment  Congress  has,  from  time  to  time,  been 
chipping  away  the  internal-revenue  taxes ;  and  in  the  bill  now  be- 
fore the  House  it  is  proposed  to  remove  more  than  $10,000,000  of 
these  taxes.  And  whatever  may  be  said  of  any  other  system  of  tax- 
ation, it  is  thoroughly  well  understood  that  all  internal-revenue 
taxes  are  paid  directly  by  the  consumers,  and  are  a  direct  burden 
upon  our  own  people  and  their  occupations. 

In  this  situation  the  sole  question  at  issue  between  the  ivro 
great  political  parties  of  the  country  is  whether  our  income  shall 
be  secured  from  a  tariff  levied  upon  foreign  products  seeking  a 
market  here,  having  in  view  revenue,  and  revenue  only,  or 
whether,  in  securing  this  revenue  and  imposing  these  tariffs 
upon  foreign  imports,  we  shall  be  mindful  not  alone  of  the 
revenue  produced  by  such  duties  and  required  for  the  govern- 
ment, but  shall  see  to  it  that  duties  are  so  levied  as  to  be  a 
protection  and  defence  to  our  own  industries  against  competing 
industries.  That  is  (as  we  all  agree  to  impose  duties  upon 
foreign  products),  shall  they  be  imposed  upon  rival  foreign 
products,  which  the  advocates  of  protection  insist  shall  bear 
them  ?  or  shall  they  be  imposed  upon  products  that  are  not 
rivals  of  our  own  and  that  do  not  compete  with  our  own,  which 
is  the  theory  and  principle  upon  which  revenue  tariffs  are  con- 
structed ? 

If  revenue  is  the  sole  consideration,  then  the  surest  and  most 
direct  way  is  to  put  the  duty  upon  those  articles  of  foreign  manu- 
facture and  production  which,  with  a  small  and  inconsiderable 
tax,  will  produce  the  largest  volume  of  revenue  ;  meaning,  of 
course,  those  articles  that  we  either  do  not  produce  at  all  or  in 
such  small  measure  as  to  fall  greatly  short  of  our  domestic  wants. 
This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  no  better  than  a  system  of  direct  taxation. 


THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION.  183 

no  less  onerous  than  the  internal-revenue  system  ;  for  if  the 
duty  is  put  upon  the  non-competing  foreign  products,  the  con- 
sumers in  the  United  States  will  pay  every  dollar  of  that  tax, 
because,  as  there  is  no  competition  at  home,  the  price  of  such 
foreign  products  to  the  American  consumer  will  be  the  foreign 
price  with  the  duty  added.  We  would  secure  the  revenue,  but 
we  would  pay  it  wholly  ourselves.  A  revenue  tariff  is  always 
paid  by  the  consumer.  We  would  secure  the  revenue  for  a  time, 
but,  in  placing  the  duty  upon  the  non-competing  foreign  product, 
we  would  give  no  encouragement  or  protection  to  any  home  in- 
ustry,  for  we  have  practically  none,  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that 
revenues  are  assured  with  the  smallest  tax ;  for  these  revenues 
will  always  be  measured  by  the  demand  of  our  people  for  such 
foreign  articles  as  we  cannot  produce  at  home,  limited  only  by 
our  ability  to  buy.  I  repeat,  this  mode  of  taxation  is  just  as  ob- 
jectionable as  the  most  burdensome  excise  tax. 

Is  it  not  better,  therefore,  I  submit,  that  the  income  of  the 
government  shall  be  secured  by  putting  a  tax  or  a  duty  upon 
foreign  products,  and  at  the  same  time  carefully  providing  that 
such  duties  shall  be  on  products  of  foreign  growth  and  manufact- 
ure which  compete  with  like  products  of  home  growth  and 
manufacture,  so  that,  while  we  are  raising  all  the  revenues  needed 
by  the  government,  we  shall  do  it  with  a  discriminating  regard 
for  our  own  people,  their  products,  and  their  employments  ? 
Such  a  tariff  stands  as  a  defence  to  our  own  productions,  as  a 
discrimination  in  favor  of  our  own  and  against  the  foreign,  and 
as  an  encouragement  to  productive  enterprises,  besides  securing  a 
healthful  competition  not  only  among  ourselves,  but  between  our- 
selves and  foreign  producers,  tending  to  prevent  combinations  and 
monopolies,  and  eventuating  in  fair  and  reasonable  prices  to  our 
own  consumers.  This  is  impossible  under  the  Democratic  revenue- 
tariff  system. 

Cardinal  Manning  says  in  a  recent  article  : 

"  If  the  jfreat  end  of  life  were  to  multiply  yards  of  cloth  and  cotton  twist,  and  if 
the  glory  of  England  consists  or  consisted  in  multiplying  without  stint  or  limit  these 
articles  and  the  like  at  the  lowest  possible  price,  so  as  to  undersell  all  the  nations  of 
the  world,  well,  then  let  us  go  on.  But  if  the  domestic  lif(»  of  the  people  be  vital 
above  all;  if  the  peace,  the  purity  of  homes,  the  education  of  children,  the  duties  of 
wives  and  mothers,  the  duties  of  husbands  and  of  fathers,  be  written  in  the  natural 
law  of  mankind,  and  if  these  things  are  sacred,  far  beyond  anything  that  can  be  sold 
in  the  market,  then  I  say,  if  the  hours  of  labor  resulting  from  the  unregulated  sale 
of  a  man's  strength  and  skill  shall  lead  to  the  destruction  of  domestic  life,  to  the 


184  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

neglect  of  children,  to  turning  wives  and  mothers  into  living  machines,  and  of 
fathers  and  husbands  into— what  shall  I  say,  creatiuos  of  burden  f— I  will  not  say  any 
other  word  -who  rise  up  before  the  sun,  and  come  bacli  when  it  is  set,  weaned  and 
able  only  to  take  food  and  lie  down  to  rest,  the  domestic  life  of  men  exists  no  longer, 
and  we  dare  not  go  on  in  this  path. 

"  I  will  ask,  is  it  possible  for  a  child  to  be  educated  who  becomes  a  daily  wage- 
earner  at  ten  or  even  twelve  years  of  age  ?  Is  it  possible  for  a  child  In  the  agricultural 
districts  to  be  educated  who  may  be  sent  out  into  the  fields  at  nine }  I  will  ask,  can 
a  woman  be  the  mother  and  head  of  a  family  who  works  sixty  hours  a  week  ?  You 
may  know  better  than  I,  but  bear  with  me  If  I  say  I  donot  understand  how  a 
woman  can  train  her  children  in  the  hours  after  they  come  home  from  school  if  she 
works  all  day  in  a  factory.  The  children  come  home  at  1  and  5  in  the  afternoon  ; 
there  is  no  mother  in  the  house.  I  do  not  know  how  she  can  either  clothe  thorn,  or 
train  them,  or  watch  over  them,  when  her  time  is  given  to  labor  for  sixty  hours  a 
week." 

Never  was  more  truth  crowded  into  the  same  space.  It  pre- 
sents the  situation  in  a  most  striking  manner.  If  the  great  end 
of  life  be  to  multiply  commodities  at  the  lowest  price,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  labor,  then  the  British  system  surpasses  ours;  then  does 
it  become  the  ideal  system,  and  the  Democratic  party  is  wise  in 
adopting  it.  But  there  are  other  considerations  higher  and  deeper 
than  cheap  fabrics,  when  made  so  by  the  degradation  of  human 
labor.  We  must  take  into  account  the  family  and  the  fireside.  We 
must  have  more  concern  for  the  man,  for  his  welfare,  his  improve- 
ment and  development,  the  enlargement  of  his  opportunities,  in- 
spiring him  to  greater  effort  in  the  confidence  of  increasing  re- 
wards. These  conditions  will  ultimately  secure  cheaper  commod- 
ities, not  through  harsli  and  unnatural  exactions  placed  upon 
labor,  but  through  that  skill  and  craft  and  invention  which  are  the 
sure  outcome  of  intelligent,  thoughtful,  independent,  and  well- 
paid  labor. 

The  mind  will  not  invent,  will  not  discover,  new  and  better 
and  more  economical  processes  and  methods  of  production,  if  the 
body  is  used  as  a  mere  "  creature  of  burden."  If  the  body  is  en- 
slaved, the  mind  cannot  be  free. 

Now,  whatever  system  will  bring  the  largest  liberty  to 
the  masses  of  our  countrymen,  the  largest  independence  to  the 
workman,  the  highest  incentive  to  manual  and  intellectual  effort, 
the  better  comforts  and  the  more  refining  environments  to  the 
family,  cannot  be  dear  at  any  price.  It  must  be  conceded  that 
the  protective  system  has  accomplished  much  in  this  direction  ; 
certainly  more  than  any  other  system.  It  has  dignified  and  ele- 
vated labor  ;  it  has  made  ali  things  possible  to  the  man  who 
M'orks  industriously  and  cares  for  what  he  earns  ;    it  has  opened 


THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION.  185 

to  him  every  gateway  to  opportunity.  We  observe  its  triumphs 
on  every  hand  :  we  see  the  mechanic  become  the  manufacturer, 
the  workman  the  proprietor,  the  employee  the  employer.  It  does 
not  stifle,  but  it  encourages,  manly  effort  and  endeavor.  Is  this 
not  worth  something  ?  Is  it  not  worth  everything  ?  Especially 
in  a  country  like  ours,  where  the  government  is  founded  upon 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  where  citizenship  is  equal,  and 
suffrage  without  limit,  is  it  not  our  plain  duty  to  educate,  improve, 
and  elevate  our  citizenship,  which  is  indispensable  to  the  peace 
and  good  order  of  our  communities,  and  the  permanence  of  our 
institutions  ?  And  the  system  which  secures  these  advantages  in  a 
larger  degree  than  any  other,  as  experience  has  demonstrated,  is 
the  protective  system. 

The  Democratic  free-trade  Tariff-Eeformers  cry  out  against 
this  system  as  narrow  and  restrictive.  The  formation  of  govern- 
ment anywhere  is  narrow  and  restrictive  :  otherwise  there  would 
be  no  occasion  for  separate  governments.  But  the  system  in  itself 
is  neither  narrow  nor  restrictive.  It  is  free — freer  than  the  fiscal 
system  of  any  other  government  as  applied  to  its  own  people.  It 
is  unrestrained  throughout  forty  States  and  all  the  territories  ;  it 
extends  from  ocean  to  ocean.  No  other  nation  has  such  freedom 
of  international  exchange  as  ours.  No  other  people  have  so  few 
restraints  placed  upon  their  commerce,  their  trade,  and  their 
labor.  The  Free-Trader  want*  the  world  to  enjoy  with  our  own 
citizens  equal  benefits  of  trade  in  the  United  States.  The  Repub- 
lican Protectionist  would  give  the  first  chances  to  our  people, 
and  would  so  levy  duties  upon  the  products  of  other  nations  as  to 
discriminate  in  favor  of  our  own.  The  Democratic  party  would 
make  no  distinction;  it  would  serve  the  alien  and  the  stranger  : 
the  Republican  party  would  serve  the  State  and  our  own  fellow- 
citizens. 

Both  of  these  systems  have  been  tried  in  the  United  States  ; 
each  has  had  a  fair  test  and  equal  opportunity  to  vindicate  ita 
value  as  a  national  policy. 

The  revenue-tariff  system  has  wholly  failed  to  give  to  the  gov- 
ernment or  the  people  satisfactory  results.  It  was  not  even  satis- 
factory as  a  financial  system  in  securing  the  needed  revenue.  It 
failed  at  the  end  of  its  last  fifteen  years  of  trial,  between  1847  and 
ami  iP^l,  to  furnish  sufficient  revenue  for  the  government ;  and 
IS  a  measure  affecting  the  development  of  our  country  and  th-e 


186  BOril  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

opening  up  of  its  vast  resources,  it  was  a  failure  from  its  inaugu- 
ration. It  did  not  even  benefit  agriculture,  which  it  was  thought 
it  would  greatly  stimulate.  The  world's  markets,  which  were  to 
be  opened  up  by  this  policy  to  our  agricultural  products,  proved 
a  disappointment  to  the  authors  of  the  policy  and  disastrous  to 
the  very  interests  it  was  intended  to  promote.  It  neither  extended 
our  trade  abroad  nor  supplied  the  needed  revenue,  and  was  posi- 
tively destructive  of  domestic  manufactures. 

Nearly  thirty  years  of  trial  of  the  system  of  protection  with  its 
marvellous  achievements  ought  to  be  answer  enough  to  the 
criticisms  of  its  enemies.  It  has  developed  our  own  resources  ;  it 
has  built  up  a  commerce  among  ourselves  without  a  parallel  in 
our  own  history  or  in  the  recorded  annals  of  the  world;  while  our 
trade  outside  has  been  growing,  and  was  never  so  great  or  so 
satisfactory  as  it  is  to-day. 

Not  only  does  our  own  experience  commend  protection  as  a 
national  policy,  but  also  the  experience  of  the  British  colonies 
which  have  adopted  it. 

Sir  Charles  Dilke,  in  his  work  "  Problems  of  Greater  Britain,*' 
— himself  a  Free-Trader, — frankly  confesses  that  it  is  not  easy  for 
a  Free-Trader  to  give  a  perfectly  fair  statement  of  the  facts  bear- 
ing upon  colonial  protection  without  himseK  being  thought  to  be 
an  apostate.  The  distinguished  author,  in  his  earlier  work,''  Great 
Britain,"  noted  the  growing  strength  of  the  doctrine  of  protec- 
tion in  the  colonies.     In  his  new  work  he  now  adds  that 

"  since  that  time  the  whole  of  the  self-governing  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  except 
New  South  Wales  and  the  Cape  (South  Africa),  have  become  protectionist,  while  the 
Cape  has  heavy  duties  upon  most  goods,  put  on,  however,  mainly  for  revenue  pur 
poses,  but  now  beginning  to  give  rise  to  a  growth  of  protectionist  opinion ;  and  in 
New  South  Wales  the  Free-Traders  hold  their  own  only  by  a  bare  majority." 

Sir  Charles  further  says  that  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  effect  in 
the  provinces  of  the  Victorian  protective  system  has  been  to  enable 
the  colony  to  gradually  supply  its  wants  with  a  better  class  of 
home-  made  goods,  instead  of  importing  them. 

Speaking  of  Canada,  he  says:  "There  can  be  but  little  doubt 
about  the  general  popularity  of  the  protective  system  in  Canada, 
and  Sir  John  Macdonald's  long  possession  of  power  has  been 
facilitated  by  his  adoption  of  the  so-called  national  policy." 
which,  on  Sir  Charles  Dilke's  own  admission,  "  has  caused 
Canadian  manufacturers  to  win  the  greater  portion  of  the  Cana- 
dian market" ;   and  he  also  states  that  the  wealth  of  Canada  has 


THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION.  187 

been  more  rapid  since  the  adoption  of  the  protectionist  policy 
than  before. 

On  the  13th  of  May,  1887,  in  the  Commons,  Sir  Charles 
Tupper,  in  speaking  of  a  previous  period  in  the  history  of  Canada 
under  free  trade,  said : 

"  When  the  languishing  industries  of  Canada  embarrassed  the  finance  minister  of 
that  day,  when,  instead  of  large  surplus,  large  deficits  succeeded  year  after  year, 
the  opposition  urged  upon  that  honorable  gentleman  that  he  should  endeavor  to 
give  increased  protection  to  the  industries  of  Canada,  which  would  prevent  them 
from  thus  languishing  and  being  destroyed.  We  were  not  successful,— I  will  not 
say  in  leading  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  to  the  conclusion  that  that  would  be 
a  sound  policy,  for  I  have  some  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  many  a  misgiving  on 
that  question,  -but,  at  all  events,  we  were  not  able  to  change  the  policy  of  the 
gentleman  who  then  ruled  the  destinies  of  Canada.  As  is  well  known,  that  became 
the  great  issue  at  the  subsequent  general  election  of  1878,  and  the  Conservative 
party  being  returned  to  power,  pledged  to  promote  and  foster  the  industries  of 
Canada  as  far  as  they  were  able,  brought  down  a  policy  through  the  hands  of  my 
honored  predecessor.  Sir  Leonard  Tilley,  .  .  .  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  the  success  of  that  policy,  thus  propounded  and  matured  from  time  to  time, 
has  been  such  as  to  command  the  support  and  confidence  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
people  of  this  country  down  to  the  present  day." 

In  Germany,  so  long  ago  as  the  14th  of  May,  1882,  Bismarck, 
in  a  speech  before  the  German  Reichstag,  paid  to  the  Republican 
tariff  high  eulogy.     He  said  : 

"  The  success  of  the  United  States  in  material  development  is  the  most  illustrious  of 
modern  time.  The  American  nation  has  not  only  successfully  borne  and  suppressed 
the  most  gigantic  and  expensive  war  of  all  history,  but  immediately  afterward  dis- 
banded its  army,  found  employment  for  all  its  soldiers  and  marines,  paid  off  most  of 
its  debt,  given  labor  and  homes  to  all  the  unemployed  of  Europe  as  fast  as  they  could 
arrive  within  its  territory,  and  still  by  a  system  of  taxation  so  indirect  as  not  to  be 
perceived,  much  less  felt.  Because  it  is  my  deliberate  judgment  that  the  prosperity 
of  America  is  mainly  due  to  its  system  of  protective  laws,  I  urge  that  Germany  has 
now  reached  that  point  where  it  is  necessary  to  imitate  the  tariff  system  of  the 
United  States. " 

Mulhall,  the  great  London  statistician,  states  that  in  1860 
our  total  wealth  was  estimated  at  $16,000,000,000  :  it  is  now 
estimated  at  over  $60,000,000,000.  In  1882  the  same  authority 
estimated  the  total  wealth  of  Great  Britain  at  $40,640,000,000. 
Mr.  Mulhall  sets  forth  our  development  and  progress  in  these 
forcible  words  : 

"  It  would  be  impossible  to  find  in  history  a  parallel  to  the  progress  of  the  United 
States  in  the  last  ten  years.  Every  day  that  the  sun  rlses.upon  the  American  people 
It  sees  an  addition  of  two  and  one-half  million  dollars  to  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
In  the  Republic,  which  is  equal  to  one-third  of  the  daily  accumulation  of  all  man- 
kind outside  the  United  States." 

It  is  said  that  under  the  Republican  policy  exportations  have 
been  diminished,  and  our  foreign  trade  crippled.     This  is  not 


188  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

sustained  by  facts.  Free  trade  will  not  increase  the  exportation 
of  our  products.  Exports  are  regulated  by  supply  and  de- 
mand. Other  countries  buy  of  us  what  they  need — no  more 
and  no  less.  Tariffs  imposed  upon  products  corning  into  the 
country  do  not  prevent  the  sending  of  products  out  of  the 
country.  They  put  no  restraint  upon  foreign  trade.  From 
Brazil,  Venezuela,  Uruguay,  and  the  United  States  of  Colombia 
we  import  to  the  value  of  $78,000,000  in  round  numbers,  of 
which  172,000,000  is  free  of  duty  at  our  ports  and  $5,815,000  is 
subject  to  duty ;  93  per  cent,  comes  in  free.  We  sell  to  these 
countries  a  little  over  $19,000,000,  or  about  25  per  cent,  of  what 
we  buy.  In  those  countries  to  which  we  sell  more  than  we  buy 
nearly  all  the  products  bear  a  duty  under  our  laws. 

We  sell  to  Europe  $449,000,000  worth  of  products  and  we  buy 
1308,000,000  worth.  We  sell  to  North  America  to  the  value  of 
$9,645,000  and  buy  $5,182,000.  We  sell  to  South  America 
$13,810,000  and  buy  $9,088,000.  These  statistics  of  the  trade  of 
the  United  States  show  that  our  tariffs  do  not  prevent  exchanges 
with  countries  whose  products  competing  with  ours  are  made 
dutiable,  but  evidence  a  healthy  and  profitable  trade,  with  the 
balance  of  exchanges  greatly  in  our  favor. 

There  have  been  so  many  reckless  statements  about  the  Repub- 
lican tariff  policy,  the  burdens  it  imposes  upon  the  people,  and 
the  restrictions  it  places  upon  trade,  that  any  one  not  familiar 
with  the  history  of  tariff  legislation  in  the  United  States  might 
be  led  to  think  that  we  impose  tariffs  almost,  if  not  quite,  amount- 
ing to  prohibition  upon  everything  which  comes  into  the  United 
States. 

A  few  facts  will  refute  these  unconsidered,  but  too  commonly 
made  and  accepted,  statements.  Under  the  present  tariff  the 
imports  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1889,  amounted  to 
$741,431,393,  of  which  $206,574,630  worth  was  admitted  free  of 
duty,  and  articles  to  the  value  of  $484,431,398  were  dutiable. 
The  duties  paid  amounted  to  $218,701,773.  The  average  per- 
centage of  the  duties  upon  all  the  imports  was  leas  than  30  per 
cent. 

Before  1820  nearly  all  our  imports  were  dutiable ;  scarcely 
any  were  free  ;  while  in  1824  the  proportion  of  free  imports  was 
less  than  6  percent.;  in  1830,  a^out  7  per  cent.;  in  1833,  about 
25  per  cent.;  and  in  1842,  about  27  per  cent.;  under  the  low 


THE  VALUE  OF  PROTECTION.  189 

tariff  of  1846  the  imports  admitted  free  of  duty  averaged  only  12 
per  cent.;  and  under  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff  of  1857  the  pro- 
portion of  free  imports  rose  to  18  per  cent.  During  the  period  of 
the  war  it  was  even  less  than  18  per  cent.  The  percentage  of  free 
imports  from  1873  to  1883  was  about  30  per  cent.,  and  under  the 
tariff  revision  of  1883  it  averaged  33  per  cent. 

It  is  said  that  the  legislation  proposed  in  the  Fifty-first  Con- 
gress is  even  more  restrictive  than  any  previous  legislation,  and 
that,  if  carried  out,  it  will  amount  to  little  less  than  a  "Chinese 
wall "  around  our  coast  line.  The  bill  pending  in  the  House,  on 
the  basis  of  last  year's  importations,  places  upon  the  free  list  im- 
ports to  the  value  of  $109,232,080,  upon  which  the  government 
last  year  collected  in  duties  $60,936,536,  which,  added  to  the  free 
imports  of  the  last  fiscal  year,  will  amount  to  $366,806,710,  and 
deducted  from  the  dutiable  imports  of  the  last  fiscal  year  reduces 
the  value  of  the  dutiable  imports  to  $375,624,687. 

The  pending  legislation,  therefore,  will  make  free,  without 
restraint  or  burden,  $366,806,710  in  value  of  foreign  products, 
and  will  diminish  the  dutiable  importations  from  $484,431,398  to 
$375,624,687  ;  which  will  make  an  average  duty  upon  all  import- 
ations of  about  27  per  cent.,  and  a  reduction  of  tariffs  to  the 
amount  of  about  10  per  cent.,  instead  of  a  large  increase,  as  seems 
to  be  the  popular  impression.  It  will  be  seen,  accordingly,  that 
about  50  per  cent. — on  the  basis  of  the  importations  of  last  year — 
will  be  free  and  50  per  cent,  dutiable;  while  the  proportion  of  free 
imports  under  the  Mills  Bill  (had  it  become  a  law)  would  not 
have  been  greater  than  40  per  cent. 

But  I  shall  not  further  discuss  the  bill  now  pending  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  That  is  being  done  in  the  House 
by  those  charged  with  legislation.  The  bill,  as  the  report 
avows,  is  framed  in  the  interest  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  better  defence  of  their  homes  and  their  in- 
dustries ;  and  while  securing  the  needed  revenue,  its  provisions 
look  alike  to  the  occupations  of  our  people,  their  comfort,  and 
their  welfare.  It  has  been  framed  in  response  to  the  will  of  the 
people,  as  expressed  at  the  polls  in  November,  1888;  and  if  it 
shall  become  a  law,  it  must  be  tried  before  the  people,  who, 
under  our  system  of  government,  are,  after  all,  the  final  arbiters  of 
legislation  and  of  policies. 

William  McKinley,  Jr. 


SUMMING   UP  THE   TARIFF  DISCUSSION. 
By  Andrew  Carnegie. 


Andrew  Carnegie. 


"  He  dies  disgraced  who  dies  rich,"  says  the  subject  of  our  sketch, 
and  the  words  are  the  key-note  to  Andrew  Carnegie's  character.  The  pos- 
sessor of  large  wealth,  the  controlling  power  in  gigantic  industries,  unlike 
many  millionaires,  Mr.  Carnegie  does  not  devote  his  life  only  to  the 
heaping  up  of  riches,  but  as  he  amasses  he  bestows,  "'not  grudgingly  nor 
of  necessity,"  but  with  a  free  and  liberal  hand,  and  in  the  ways  best  cal- 
culated to  promote  the  welfare  and  comfort  of  the  human  race. 

Andrew  Carnegie  was  bom  November  25,  1835,  of  humble  parentage, 
in  the  town  of  Dunfermline,  Scotland.  The  first  ten  years  of  his  exist- 
ence were  passed  in  his  native  land,  the  family  emigrating  to  A.merica  in 
1845. 

The  elder  Carnegie  was  a  man  of  enlarged  ideas.  By  trade  a  weaver, 
his  aspirations  ranged  beyond  shuttle  and  loom,  and  in  the  great  republic 
of  the  West  he  foresaw  a  betterment  of  fortune,  a  wider  sphere  for  social 
and  poUtical  development,  such  as  the  environments  of  his  life  at  home 
could  never  bestow.  He  settled  at  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  where  at 
the  tender  age  of  twelve  Andrew  began  his  battle  with  the  world  by  be- 
coming the  keeper  of  a  small  steam  engine. 

At  this  period  the  telegraph  system  was  still  in  its  infancy.  The  At- 
lantic and  Ohio  Company  had  established  itself  over  a  small  portion  of 
the  country  and  along  the  line  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad.  Young 
Carnegie  embraced  an  opportunity  to  enter  its  employ  as  a  messenger  boy. 
He  soon  became  a  swift  and  responsible  operator.  Promotion  followed 
fast.  He  was  given  a  lucrative  jwsition  at  the  office  of  the  Ptjnnsylvania 
Railroad  in  Pittsburgh,  and  eventually  became  superintendent  of  that 
I)articu!ar  division. 

In  connection  with  Mr.  Woodruff,  of  sleeping  car  fame,  he  scored  a 
brilliant  success  and  laid  thereby  the  foundations  of  his  vast  fortune. 
Speculation  during  the  prevalence  of  tlie  oil  fever  in  Pennsylvania  added 
still  further  to  his  hoards  and  enabled  him  to  establish  those  great  rolling 
mills,  those  mighty  manufactories  of  iron  and  steel  that  hare  helped  to 
make  the  name  of  Carnegie  world  renowned. 

Philanthropic  scheme  upon  scheme,  benefaction  upon  benefaction,  has 
been  a  marked  feature  of  his  career.     The  establishment  of  free  libra- 


194  ANDREW  CARNEGIE. 

ries  lx>th  in  this  country  and  in  Scotland,  the  endowment  of  educational 
institutions,  music  halls,  and  the  Carnegie  laboratory  at  Bellevue  hospital, 
New  York,  are  only  a  few  among  his  princely  deeds. 

On  the  tariff  question  Mr.  Carnegie  is  ranged  upon  the  side  of  protec- 
tion, and  defends  his  position  with  rare  logic  and  skill.  He  is  the  writer 
of  several  interesting  books,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  ''  Trium- 
phant Democracy"  and  *'  The  Gospel  of  Wealth,"  both  of  which  have  had 
large  sales.  His  contributions  to  the  magazines  and  newspapers  have 
also  been  numerous  and  varied. 

Take  him  all  in  all,  he  is  a  man  who  has  made  a  lasting  impress  upon 
his  age.  As  an  example  of  what  pluck  and  perseverance,  joined  with 
brains,  can  accomplish  he  stands  supreme.  No  one  can  envy  him  the 
possession  of  his  wealth,  for  the  uses  to  which  his  generous  heart  has  de- 
voted it  command  the  respect  and  the  gratitude  of  all.  In  the  very  prime 
of  life,  one  can  only  surmise,  judging  by  the  record  of  past  noble  deeds, 
what  new  gifts  for  the  benefit  of  humanity  still  remain  to  fall  from  his 
hand,  crowning  anew,  as  it  were,  an  unexampled  existence  of  thrift  and 
honor. 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION. 

BY    ANDREW    CARNEGIE. 


The  North  American  Eeview  asks  me  to  participate  in  the 
free-trade  and  protection  duel,  in  which  Messrs.  Gladstone  and 
Blaine  were  the  first  to  cross  swords.     I  comply  with  pleasure. 

Anything  that  Mr.  Gladstone  writes  is  of  great  interest ;  but 
his  contribution  to  this  controversy  does  not  seem  to  be  specially 
instructive  to  the  United  States,  because  it  does  not  touch  the 
problem  with  which  they  have  had  and  still  have  to  deal.  It  is 
thoroughly  British,  and  deals  almost  exclusively  with  Britain's 
mistaken  policy  of  taxing  food  from  abroad  without  the  possibility 
of  thereby  increasing  the  home  supply.  Let  us  consider  what  pro- 
tection and  free  trade  mean  to  the  Briton.  Great  Britain  was 
too  small  to  produce  sufficient  food  to  feed  its  people.  The  land 
being  already  fully  under  cultivation,  the  amount  of  food  prod- 
ucts derivable  from  it  could  not  be  increased;  nevertheless,  duties 
were  imposed  upon  food  from  abroad.  This  constituted  a  monop- 
oly in  favor  of  the  owners  of  the  land,  which  was  bound  to  raise 
the  price  of  food  as  the  population  increased.  Imagine  what  the 
price  of  food  would  be  there  to-day  if  the  thirty-seven  millions  of 
her  people  had  to  be  fed  from  the  products  of  her  own  soil.  They 
could  not  be  so  fed.  Millions  would  have  to  starve.  Free  trade  in 
Britain  only  means  that  the  people  of  Britain  compelled  the 
landed  aristocracy  to  open  the  ports  to  food  supplies  from  other 
lands.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Mr.  Gladstone  thinks  of  "mouDp- 
oly"  and  '*  immorality  "  whenever  he  speaks  of  protection ;  for 
protection  to  the  produce  of  the  land  of  Britain  was  perhaps  the 
most  effective  monopoly  ever  established.  By  no  possibility  could 
it  be  evaded.  All  that  Mr.  Gladstone  says  in  regard  to  the 
**  folly"  and  the  "  immorality  "  of  this  attempt  to  maintain  a 
monopoly  and  starve  the  people  is  true  and  well  deserved. 

But  how  different  the   meaning  of    protection   when   used 
by   the  American.      We  have    in    the   United    States,   as  Mr. 
13 


196  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Gladstone  says,  "  a  world,  and  not  a  very  little  world,"  with- 
in itself.  Previous  to  its  severance  from  England,  manu- 
factures were  prohibited  by  law  in  this  world.  It  was  an  ex- 
clusively agricultural  land,  realizing  the  ideal  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone paints  for  it  now  ;  growing  the  corn,  the  oats,  the  wheat, 
and  the  cotton,  furnishing  the  pork  and  the  beef,  for  other  lands, 
but  dependent  for  all  its  manufactured  articles  upon  the  parent 
country.  When  the  colony  obtained  its  political  independence, 
it  naturally  wished  to  establish  its  industrial  independence  also. 
That  great  Scotchman,  Alexander  Hamilton,  first  struck  tlie  key- 
note of  the  second  struggle  when,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
December  5,  1791,  he  said  : 

"This  idea  of  an  extensive  domestic  market  for  the  surplus  produce  of  the  soil 
is  of  the  9rst  consequence.  It  is,  of  all  things,  that  which  most  effectually  con- 
duces to  a  flourishing  state  of  agriculture."  "To  secure  such  a  market  there  is  no 
other  expedient  than  to  promote  manufacturing  establishments."  "It  is  the 
interest  of  a  community,  with  a  view  to  eventual  and  permanent  ec  inomy,  to 
encourage  the  growth  of  manufactures.  In  a  national  view,  a  temporary  enhance- 
ment of  price  must  always  be  well  compensated  by  a  permanent  reduction  of  it." 

American  statesmen  have  followed  in  similar  strains.  Thus 
SVashington's  last  annual  address,  December  7,  1796,  says  : 

"  Congress  have  repeatedly,  and  not  without  success,  directed  their  attention  to 
the  encouragement  of  manufactures.  The  object  is  of  too  much  consequence  not  to 
Insure  a  continuance  of  their  efforts  in  every  way  which  shall  appear  eligible." 

President  Madison's  special  message,  May  23,  1809,  says  : 

"It  will  be  worthy,  at  the  same  time,  of  their  just  and  provident  care  to  make 
such  further  alterations  in  the  laws  as  will  more  especially  protect  and  foster  the 
several  branches  of  manufacture  which  have  be  en  recently  instituted  or  extended 
by  the  laudable  exertion  of  our  citizens." 

Thomas  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  to  Benjamin  Austin,  Boston,  1816, 
says  : 

"  To  be  independent  for  the  comforts  of  life  we  must  fabricate  them  ourselves. 
We  must  now  place  our  manufacturers  by  the  side  of  the  agricultuiiat.  .  .  . 
Experience  has  taught  me  that  manufactures  are  now  as  necessary  to  our  independ 
ence  as  to  our  comfort." 

President  Monroe's  first  inaugural  address,  March  5,  1817,  says  : 

"  Our  manufactures  will  likewise  require  the  systematic  and  fostering  care  of 
the  government.  Possessing,  as  we  do,  all  the  raw  materials,  the  fruit  of  our  own 
soil  and  industry,  we  ought  not  to  depend,  in  the  degree  we  have  done,  on  supplies 
from  other  countries.  While  we  are  thus  dependent,  the  sudden  event  of  war,  un- 
sought and  unexpected,  cannot  fail  to  plunge  us  into  the  most  serious  difficulties." 

President  Jackson,  August  26,  1824  : 

"  Heaven  smiled  upon  and  gave  us  liberty  and  independence.  The  same  Provi- 
dence has  blessed  us  with  the  means  of  national  independence  and  national  defence. 
If  we  omit  or  refuse  to  use  the  gifts  which  he  has  extended  to  us,  we  deserve  not  the 
continuance  of  his  blessing.  He  has  filled  our  mountains  and  our  plains  with 
minerals— with  lead,  iron,  and  copper— ana  given  us  a  climate  and  soil  for  the  grow 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  197 

tag  of  hemp  and  wool.  These  betag  the  great  materials  of  our  national  defence, 
they  ought  to  have  extended  to  them  adequate  and  fair  protection,  that  our  manu- 
facturers and  laborers  may  be  placed  in  a  fair  competition  with  those  of  Europe,  and 
that  we  may  have  within  otu"  country  a  supply  of  these  leading  and  important  ar- 
ticles so  essential  to  war . " 

Such  are  the  teachings  of  the  fathers.  Pages  could  be  filled 
proving  their  passionate  anxiety  to  establish  manufactures  by 
legislation,  which  Mr.  Gladstone  thinks  partakes  of  an  immoral 
character.  I  quote  these  memorable  utterances  to  illustrate  the 
difference  between  an  old  land  which  has  the  best-equipped 
system  of  manufactures  ever  known  already  in  operation,  and 
produces  more  manufactures  than  it  can  consume,  and  a  new  land 
which  has  no  manufactures,  but  is  desirous  of  obtaining  them. 
How  different  the  point  of  view  from  which  the  statesmen  of  the 
old  and  the  new  land  must  regard  the  policy  of  protection  !  How 
different  the  problem  with  which  they  have  to  deal  !  To  place 
this  difference  in  the  clearest  light,  I  quote  Mr.  Gladstone's 
presentation  of  free  trade  (pages  9  and  10,  North  American" 
Keview  for  January)  : 

"International  c  ommerce  is  based,  not  upon  arbitrary  or  fanciful  considera- 
tions, but  upon  the  unequal  distribution  among  men  and  regions  of  aptitudes  to 
produce  the  several  commodities  which  are  necessary  or  useful  for  the  sustenance, 
comfort,  and  advantage  of  human  life 

"  If  every  country  produced  all  commodities  with  exactly  the  same  degree  of 
facility  or  cheapness,  it  would  be  contrary  to  common-sense  to  incur  the  charge  of 
sending  them  from  one  country  to  another. 

"  But  the  inequalities  are  so  great  that  (for  example)  region  A  can  supply  region 
B  with  many  articles  of  food,  and  region  B  can  in  return  supply  region  A  with  many 
articles  of  clothing,  at  such  rates  that,  although  in  each  case  the  charge  of  trans- 
mission has  of  necessity  been  added  to  the  first  cost,  the  respective  articles  can  be 
sold  after  importation  at  a  lower  rate  than  If  they  were  home-grown  or  home-manu- 
factured in  the  one  or  the  other  country  respectively." 

The  position  of  the  new  country  desirous  of  industrial  inde- 
pendence we  will  state  in  the  words  of  an  Englishman  not  un- 
worthy to  be  classed  as  an  economist  with  Mr.  Gladstone  himself 
—John  Stuart  Mill:* 

"  The  superiority  of  one  country  over  another,  to  a  branch  of  production,  often 
arises  only  from  having  begun  it  sooner.  There  may  be  no  Inherent  advantage  on 
one  part  or  disadvantage  on  the  other,  but  only  a  present  superiority  of  acquired 
skill  and  experience.  A  country  which  has  this  skill  and  experience  yet  to  acquire 
may,  in  other  respects,  be  better  adapted  to  the  production  than  those  which  were 
earlier  in  the  field;  and,  besides,  it  is  a  just  remark  that  nothing  has  a  greater  tend- 
ency to  promote  improvements  in  any  branch  of  production  than  its  trial  under  a 
new  set  of  conditions.  But  it  cannot  be  expected  that  individuals  should  at  their 
own  risk,  or,  rather,  to  their  certain  loss,  introduce  a  new  manufacttire  and  bear  the 
burden  of  carrying  it  on  until  the  producers  have  been  educated  up  to  the  level  of  those 

•  "  PQlitical  Economy,"  Vol  II.,  book  v.,  chap.  10,  secttpq  1,  pages  512,  513, 


198  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

with  whom  the  processes  are  traditional.  A  protecting  duty,  continued  for  a  reason- 
able time,  will  sometimes  be  the  least  inconvenient  mode  in  which  the  nation  can 
tax  itself  for  the  support  of  such  an  experiment." 

Here  we  have  the  whole  question  in  a  nutshell.  I  have 
heard  Mr.  John*  Bright  say  that  Mr.  Mill,  by  this  para- 
graph, had  done  more  harm  than  all  the  remainder  of  his 
writings  would  ever  do  good.  But  Mr.  Bright  confounded  effect 
with  cause.  Mr.  Mill's  paragraph  in  itself  has  done  neither 
harm  nor  good.  It  simply  records  the  practice  of  every  new 
country  that  seeks  to  develop  its  latent  manufacturing  powers. 
Mr.  Mill's  words  were,  no  doubt,  surprising  to  Mr.  Bright,  and 
to  Britons  generally — perhaps  to  Mr.  Gladstone  himself.  The 
new  doctrine  differed  from  the  policy  which,  being  desirable  for 
Britain,  Mr.  Bright  naturally  thought  of  universal  application 
and  desirable  for  all.  The  statesmen  of  the  United  States,  how- 
ever, had  discovered,  acted  upon,  and  demonstrated  by  unprece- 
dented success  the  wisdom  of  Mr.  Mill's  words  long  before  they 
were  written.  *It  may  be  noted,  however,  in  passing,  that  the 
**  immorality"  of  a  new  nation's  endeavoring  to  develop  her  re- 
sources by  protective  duties  had  evidently  not  occurred  to  the 
philosopher. 

The  only  question,  then,  in  which  the  United  States  are  in- 
terested is  this  :  Given  a  world  within  itself,  with  every  requisite 
for  manufacturing  the  various  commodities  required  by  its  people, 
was  it  wise  to  give  the  necessary  concessions  and  bounties  to  in- 
duce skill  and  capital  to  establish  manufactures  within  this  world  ? 
and,  if  it  were  found  that  the  easiest  and  surest  mode  of  building 
up  manufactures  was  by  taxing  the  manufactures  of  other  na- 
tions, so  that  the  product  of  experimental  factories  in  the  unde- 
veloped land  should  be  shielded  from  the  competition  of  fully- 
developed  factories  abroad,  should  this  protection  have  been 
given  or  not,  and  should  it  be  maintained  as  far  as  may  be  found 
necessary  ?  How  interesting  it  would  be  to  have  Mr.  Gladstone's 
answer  to  this  problem — the  only  one  which  our  country  has  to 
consider. 

Even  should  Mr.  Gladstone  hastily  reply  in  the  negative, 
it  is  probable  that  he  would  scarcely  utter  the  word  ere  he 
paused  and  reconsidered.  First  he  might  say  to  himself:  "This 
is  a  problem  with  which  I  have  never  had  to  deal.  It  is  new  to 
me.  I  must  examine.  I  must  think."  Then  it  might  occur 
to    him    that    all    of    his    countrymen    who    govern    English- 


^VMmINO  up  i'Hig  TARIFF  t)lSCtJSSiO^.  199 

speaking  people  throughout  the  world  have  decided  the  question 
in  the  affirmative  for  their  respective  countries.  The  Gladstone 
of  Canada,  a  thorough  Scotchman  like  himself,  Sir  John  Macdon- 
ald;  the  premiers  of  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  every  British 
colony;  and,  even  in  old  Europe,  Bismarck,  and  Tisza,  and 
Carnot,  and  the  Russian  premier,  all  backed  by  public  opinion, 
have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  essential  for  their 
governments  to  levy  protective  duties  in  order  to  establish 
manufactures.  It  is  significant  that  all  these  countries  are  de- 
sirous of  developing  manufactures  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  supply 
their  wants  at  home;  while  Britain  already  manufactures  more 
than  she  wants  at  home,  and  must  send  abroad.  Perhaps  this 
fact  has,  unconsciously,  something  to  do  with  the  differing  views 
of  those  concerned.  They  look  at  it  from  opposite  sides.  All  the 
civilized  nations  of  the  world  answer  this  question  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  confirm  their  opinion  by  their  acts — if  we  except  New 
South  Wales,  a  pastoral  land  with  slightly  over  one  million  of  people, 
which  is  now  about  equally  balanced  upon  the  question  in  its 
legislature. 

That  thorough  man  of  the  world,  Mr.  Labouch^re,  has  recently 
explained  that  the  question  of  free  trade  or  protection  is  one  of  con- 
dition; not  a  science  applicable  everywhere.  It  is  good  for  some 
countries,  bad  for  others.  "  As  I  am  an  Englishman,"  says 
he,  "  I  am  in  favor  of  free  trade;  but  if  I  were  an  American,  I 
should  be  in  favor  of  protection."  Of  course,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  all  these  Britons  abroad  and  all  these  countries  may  be 
wrong,  and  that  the  Briton  who  remains  upon  his  little  island, 
and  has  never  seen  a  new  country,  and  to  whom  the  word 
PROTECTION  means  a  tax  upon  a  food  supply  which  cannot 
be  increased  by  protection,  may  be  right.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  that  all  of  these  governing  men  and  all  these 
countries,  having  the  advantage  of  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
problem,  may  be  right,  and  that  it  is  the  Bnton  in  little  manu- 
facturing Britain  who  is  in  the  position  of  the  one  stubborn 
man  upon  the  jury. 

At  any  rate,  the  policy  of  protecting  manufactures  in  new 
countries,  or  wherever  protection  is  necessary  even  in  old  coun- 
tries, has  in  its  support  a  consensus  of  the  governing  men 
and  of  the  countries  of  the  world.  No  statesman  attaches 
more  importance  to  such  a  consensus  upon  any  question  than  Mr. 


1^  ^OTH  StDES  OF  TH^  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Gladstone.  Nothing  is  proved  to  him  more  clearly,  nothing  is  urged 
by  him  more  persistently  upon  his  adversaries,  for  instance,  than 
that  for  his  policy  of  home  rule  he  has  with  him  a  consensus 
of  the  civilized  world,  as  evinced  by  their  words.  For  the 
doctrine  of  protection  we  have  better  than  words.  We  have 
the  acts  of  every  country.  If  it  be  contended  that  a  new 
discovery  or  a  great  improvement  always  has  the  majority  against 
it  at  the  beginning,  this  is  true;  but  let  us  note  that,  while  the 
progress  of  a  new  truth  or  discovery  may  be  slow  at  first,  yet  it  is 
steady,  and  keeps  on  conquering  by  its  inherent  power.  If  free  trade 
for  the  world  had  really  been  of  universal  application,  and  best  for 
countries  developed  and  undeveloped  in  manufacturing,  it  must 
inevitably  have  proved  so  ere  now;  at  least,  the  doctrine  would 
have  held  its  own. 

What  is  the  situation  to-day  ?  So  far  from  progressing, 
the  cause  of  free  trade  has  receded,  and  is  now  confined  to 
the  little  island  of  Britain  itself  and  New  South  Wales,  with 
its  pastoral  land  and  one  million  inhabitants.  A  recent 
morning  paper  (April  23,  1890)  announces,  for  instance,  that 
Newfoundland  has  just  increased  its  tariff  upon  foreign  goods. 
Canada  increased  hers  largely  last  year.  We  need  not  speak 
of  Germany,  France,  Russia  ;  these  countries  are  constantly 
at  work  upon  the  task  of  shielding  their  industries.  Even  the 
strongest  tariff-reform  paper  in  the  United  States,  the  New  York 
Times,  of  a  late  date  (April  27),  begins  an  editorial  thus  : 

"All  the  sigrns  point  to  the  joining  by  France  of  the  protectionist  reaction  that  is 
now  setting  in  over  all  Continental  Europe.  The  Committee  on  the  Budget  of  the 
new  Chamber  has  been  made  up  distinctly  in  the  interest  of  the  policy  of  terminating 
the  treaties  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  taxing  food  and  raw  materials. 
This  will  be  a  great  experiment  for  France.  Since  1860  her  fiscal  policy  has  been  one 
of  the  widest  reciprocity.  Probably  no  other  country  has  negotiated  so  many 
commercial  treaties  on  a  reciprocal  basis." 

And  only  the  other  day,  as  the  cable  informed  us,  Mr.  Gladstone 
said  to  the  Cobden  Club  that  Free-Traders  must  recognize  with 
keen  disappointment  how  much  ground  had  been  lost  by  their 
doctrine  within  the  last  twenty-five  years.  Where  has  a  great 
economical  truth,  a  sound  theory,  ever  lost  ground  once  gained  ? 
The  case  against  free  trade  as  being  of  universal  application  is 
closed,  for,  after  twenty-five  years  of  struggle,  it  is  to-day  in  full 
retreat  all  over  the  field.  What  is  true  never  retreats.  It  holds 
the  field  against  all  comers. 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  201 

In  this  consensus  of  opinion  in  favor  of  protection  all  parties 
in  America  are  agreed.  President  Cleveland's  famous  message, 
Mr.  Breckinridge's  article  in  the  April  number  of  The  Ee- 
viE\v,  every  platform  of  the  Democratic,  as  of  the  Republican, 
party,  confirm  this.  Mr.  Gladstone  will  find  ten  Britons  favoring 
protection  in  Britain  to  one  American  in  the  United  States 
favoring  free  trade.  It  is  not  a  question  whether  the  doc- 
trine of  protection  to  manufactures  be  upheld,  but  simply  a 
question  of  how  much,  if  any  further,  protection  is  necessary. 
Convince  the  American  people  to-day  that  it  is  necessary 
to  increase  the  duties  upon  iron,  or  steel,  or  silk,  or 
woollens,  show  them  that  the  manufacture  of  these  articles  at 
home  cannot  be  sustained  in  competition  with  Europe  without 
additional  duties,  and  the  additional  duties  will  be  promptly 
levied.  Mr.  Breckinridge  truly  says  (April  North  American 
Review,  page  506) : 

"Practically  the  present  generation  of  statesmen  will  never  meet  the  question 
of  free  trade.  Whatever  views  may  be  entertained  by  those  in  public  life  or  by  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  it  cannot  be  that  in  our  day  free  trade,  even  in  the  limited 
sense  in  which  Great  Britain  has  adopted  it.  can  be  made  the  system  of  the  United 
States;  .  .  .  it  is  also  freely  admitted  that  it  is  impossible  to  ' raise  the  revenues ' 
required  by  the  United  States  under  a  system  of  tariff  imposition  without  incidental 
protection  to  certain  industries." 

His  position  illustrates  still  further  how  little  bearing  Mr. 
Gladstone's  article  has  upon  the  question  of  protection  as  it 
interests  the  United  States. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  permit  me  to  con- 
sider another  phase  of  it  as  presented  by  Mr.  Gladstone. 
While  it  is  quite  true  that  protection  has  reduced  the  price  of 
manufactured  commodities  to  the  consumer  below  what  he  would 
have  had  to  pay  if  dependent  upon  the  supplies  of  articles 
from  abroad,  there  is,  nevertheless,  a  vital  part  of  the  question  of 
protection  versus  free  trade  which  is  not  settled  by  the  mere 
question  of  price.  Presidents  Monroe  and  Jackson  touch  upon 
it  in  their  words  already  quoted.  Even  if  Mr.  Gladstone's  con- 
tention were  true,  that  region  A  could  permanently  supply  cer- 
tain articles  cheaper  than  region  B,  it  does  not  follow  that  it 
would  not  be  wise  for  region  B  to  incur  the  increased  cost  until 
the  brotherhood  of  man  comes  upon  earth  ;  for  to  the  statesmen 
charged  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  their  country  the  danger 
of   war  must  be  ever  present.      Sad  as  is    the    thought,  and 


202  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

repugnant  as  it  is  to  our  ideas,  nevertheless  statesmen  are  bound 
to  deal  with  what  is,  not  with  what  they  wish  to  be.  No  nation 
acts  upon  this  principle  more  consistently  than  Britain.  She  has 
just  passed  an  act  devoting  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars  to 
increase  her  already  enormous  navy.  Why  ?  Because,  being 
unfortunately  dependent  upon  foreign  nations  for  a  supply  of 
food,  she  must  perforce  so  legislate  that  her  ports  cannot  be  closed 
by  hostile  fleets.  Mr.  Goschen,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
has  just  said  that  no  nation  ever  existed  to  which  absolute  secur- 
ity was  so  essential.  As  the  price  of  her  existence  she  must  keep 
command  of  the  seas.  Convinced  of  the  necessity  of  this,  were 
I  in  public  life  in  England, — vice-president  of  the  Arbitration 
Society  as  I  am, — I  should,  nevertheless,  be  compelled  to  support 
any  measures  necessary  to  secure  this  end. 

Applying  this  principle  to  the  United  States,  it  will  be  within 
Mr.  Gladstone's  recollection  that  not  so  long  ago  we  were  en- 
gaged in  a  deadly  struggle  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  In 
what  condition  did  the  country  find  itself  then  ?  Without  the 
ability  to  supply  clothing,  arms,  or  ammunition  for  *her  troops. 
Iron  and  steel  for  railways  and  locomotives — articles  almost  as 
essential  for  subduing  the  Rebellion  as  any  of  those  named — could 
not  be  procured  at  home.  Agents  were  despatched  to  Britain 
and  the  Continent ;  and  it  was  only  by  drawing  from  foreign 
countries  that  the  Republic  was  able  to  triumph.  If  Mr.  Mar- 
cellus  Hartly,  or  Mr.  Gilead  A.  Smith,  or  any  of  the  other  agents 
with  whose  experience  I  am  familiar,  could  be  induced  to  write 
the  story  of  these  negotiations  and  purchases,  it  would  be  most 
interesting  reading  indeed  for  every  American.  Think  of  the 
danger  with  which  this  country  was  confronted  at  that  awful 
moment.  When  its  agents  were  making  these  very  purchases,  the 
government  of  Britain  was  on  the  eve  of  entering  the  struggle 
against  the  Republic  ;  and  was  only  prevented  from  doing  so  by 
the  unceasing  efforts  of  Mr.  Bright,  Mr.  Foster,  Mr.  Morley,  Mr. 
Gold  win  Smith,  and  other  leaders  of  the  people,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  governing  class,  which  was  anxious  then,  as 
it  is  anxious  now,  and  ever  will  be  anxious,  to  strangle  a  repub- 
lic which  daily  proves  monarchy  and  aristocracy  to  be  excres- 
cences upon  the  body  politic. 

If  I  read  aright  the  temper  of  the  American  people,  they  will 
never  again  consent  to  be  subjected  to  dependence    upon  any 


SUMMING  VP  THE  TARIFF  DlS  jUSSION.  gOB 

other  power  than  themselves  for  all  the  means  necessary  to 
deal  with  either  foreign  or  domestic  trouble.  It  is  significant 
that  legislation  for  increasing  the  military  and  naval  strength  of 
the  country  invariably  requires  all  the  necessary  material  to  be 
made  within  its  own  territory.  No  Free-Trader — not  one — votes 
against  this  highly  protective — nay,  prohibitive — policy.  The  re- 
quirement passes  unanimously  in  every  case.  Why  do  not  Mr. 
Mills  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  vote  upon  such  occasions  in  favor  of 
buying  where  they  can  buy  cheapest  ?  Because  they  realize  that  in 
certain  contingencies  the  safety  of  their  country  depends  upon  its 
being  prepared  to  supply  all  from  within  itself.  This  necessity  is 
somewhat  less  obvious  in  the  case  of  clothing  for  troops,  and  still 
less  so,  perhaps,  in  regard  to  a  prompt  and  full  supply  of  steel  in 
the  cruder  forms.  Yet  the  enormous  supplies  of  steel  and  iron 
which  the  Baldwins  and  other  locomotive  manufacturers  obtained 
in  Britain  during  the  Rebellion  contributed  largely  to  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  Civil  War.  It  could  scarcely  have  been  suppressed 
without  a  rapid  development  of  our  railway  facilities ;  and  this 
required  steel  and  iron  far  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  country  then 
to  produce.  Even  when  aiding  railways,  the  government  in- 
variably enacts  that  no  foreign  material  shall  be  used  in  their 
construction. 

To  this  policy  England  also  strictly  conforms.  Mr.  Blaine 
has  shown  that,  in  the  case  of  steamship  lines,  she  will  permit 
no  foreign  steamships  to  compete  even  for  carrying  the  mails. 
On  the  contrary,  when  the  Postmaster-General  of  England  had 
closed  an  arrangement  with  the  North-German  Lloyd,  which 
gave  much  better  service  upon  more  favorable  terms  than  the 
English  steamship  lines  had  it  in  their  power  to  give,  Parliament 
promptly  compelled  him  to  forego  the  arrangement.  The  people 
of  England  would  not  stand  it.  Take  the  recent  test  of  armor- 
plate  at  Portsmouth.  While  the  form  of  asking  foreign  manu- 
facturers to  submit  trial  plates  was  observed,  the  foreigners  very 
properly  answered  :  ''  We  will  do  so,  if  you  agree  to  give  us  the 
contract  should  our  plates  prove  superior  to  the  British,  and  if 
we  agree  to  furnish  them  upon  equal  or  better  terms."  Tlie  Brit- 
ish government  declined  to  do  this,  and  therefore  not  a  foreign 
manufacturer  sent  a  plate  for  trial.  I  do  not  mention  this  pro- 
tective action  to  dispute  its  wisdom  ;  on  the  contrary,  I  should 
not  consider  any  party  in   Britain  or  in  the  United   States  fit 


204  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TAIUFF  QUESTION. 

to  be  intrusted  with  government  which  did  not  look  to  it  that 
every  pound  of  steel  and  every  rivet  in  its  war-ships  were  made  at 
home. 

If  the  present  British  government  should  accept  armor-plate 
from  a  foreign  nation  for  one  ship,  Mr.  Gladstone  would  be  in 
power  within  twenty-four  hours.  It  would  do  more  to  dissolve 
the  present  coalition  than  all  the  speeches  of  my  friends  of  the 
Liberal  party,  and  more  than  all  the  by-elections  in  favor  of  the 
principle  of  home  rule.  Devoted  to  free  trade  as  England  pre- 
tends to  be,  no  ministry  dare  give  the  patronage  of  the  govern- 
ment to  foreign  steamships,  or  use  for  a  single  ship  armor-plate 
which  Britain  itself  does  not  furnish.  My  native  land  is 
given  to  preaching  a  good  deal  to  less  civilized  lands,  but  when  it 
comes  to  practice,  her  practical  instincts  may  be  safely  trusted. 
The  Briton  has  not  lost  his  common-sense.  There  is,  therefore,  a 
large  domain,  the  most  vital  of  all,  in  which  the  question  of 
dollars  and  cents  does  not  enter.  Mr.  Gladstone's  region  A  may 
offer  any  terms  it  pleases,  but  region  B  (Britain)  and  region  U 
(the  United  States)  will  continue  to  supply  their  own  arms,  their 
own  steel,  their  own  armor-plates,  their  own  guns,  and  their  own 
ships,  free-trade  preaching  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
In  region  U  practice  and  theory  agree.  To  region  B  we  pay 
the  rare  compliment  of  saying  that  its  practice  is  better  than  its 
theory.  It  preaches  free  trade,  but  practises  protection.  In 
everything,  therefore,  that  is  seen  to  affect  the  safety  of  a  nation, 
— and  more  manufactured  articles  contribute  to  a  nation's  safety 
than  might  at  first  appear, — proof  that  region  A  could  sup- 
ply region  B  cheaper  than  region  B  could  itself  provide  the 
necessary  articles  would  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  sub- 
ject.    One  might  as  well  prove  that  all  flesh  is  grass. 

Is  it  not  significant  that  at  this  very  moment  the  gravest 
danger  to  the  peace  of  this  continent  arises  from  the  refusal 
of  Britain  to  arbitrate  the  difference  which  she  has  with  our 
sister-republic,  Venezuela  ?  That  any  power  will  ever  under- 
take to  light  the  torch  of  war  upon  this  continent,  in  the  face 
of  the  recent  action  of  the  seventeen  republics  which  occupy 
it,  I  do  not  believe.  The  attitude  of  England  to-day,  how- 
ever, upon  this  question,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  enor- 
mous increase  of  her '  naval  power,  deserves  to  be  carefully 
weighed  by  every    citizen  of  this  continent ;    and    here  every 


suMMtm  ryp  tse  tariff  discussion.    (^  206 

American  will  be  glad  to  pay  Mr.  Gladstone  the  deserved  tribute 
of  saying  that  were  he  in  power  as  the  representative  of 
the  democracy,  instead  of  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  as  the 
representative  of  the  aristocracy,  the  offer  of  any  power  with 
which  Britain  has  a  difference  to  submit  the  question  to  peaceful 
arbitration  would  not  be  rudely  repelled.  The  grandest  work 
among  many  grand  works  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  career  is  the  settle- 
ment of  the  "  Alabama"  difficulty  by  peaceful  arbitration.  If  he 
never  did  anything  else,  if  he  never  does  anything  else, — which 
God  forbid  I — he  will  still  for  this  work  have  earned  an  enduring 
place  among  the  benefactors  of  mankind.  Indeed,  Mr.  Gladstone 
is  so  grand  a  character  and  has  a  mind  so  open  to  the  reception  of 
new  ideas  that  I  entertain  not  the  slightest  doubt  that,  were  he  to 
spend  a  few  weeks  in  this  new  country,  he  would  recognize  that 
his  friend,  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  the  passage  I  have  quoted, 
had  rightly  discerned  the  necessity  for  protecting  new  manufact- 
ures, and  that  all  his  fellow-countrymen  intrusted  with  the  gov- 
ernment of  English  countries  beyond  the  limit  of  his  island  are 
not  wrong.  He  is  right  upon  the  question  for  Britain,  and  ac- 
quaintance with  our  different  conditions  would  make  him  right 
upon  it  here. 

To  return  to  the  main  question.  It  may  be  assumed  that  all 
parties  in  this  country  desire  the  United  States  to  continue  as  she 
is — the  greatest  manufacturing  nation  in  the  world  ;  and  also  that 
there  is  no  objection  to  Colonel  Breckinridge's  position,  that  its 
manufacturers  must  necessarily  continue  to  receive  incidental  pro- 
tection. The  practical  question,  therefore,  resolves  itself  to  this  : 
Has  the  infantile  stage  of  our  manufacturing  system  passed  ?  Has 
it  reached  the  full  stature  of  maturity  ?  Are  we  prepared  to 
let  down  the  bars  and  stand  exposed  against  foreign  manufact- 
urers ?  These  are  legitimate  questions.  To  the  college  pro- 
fessor and  the  student  in  his  closet  it  may  well  appear  that  a  nation 
which  manufactures  more  tons  of  steel  than  Great  Britain  and 
almost  as  much  pig-iron,  and  which  furnishes  so  great  a  proportion 
of  the  woollens,  silks,  and  cottons  consumed  by  it,  has  outgrown 
the  necessity  for  further  protection.  One  can  quite  understand 
that  this  should  appear  reasonable.     Let  us  consider  it. 

It  is  thirty  years  since  the  Civil  War  rendered  it  necessary  greatly 
to  increase  duties  upon  imports.  Up  to  that  time  and  during  the 
struggle,  as  I  have  shown,  the  country  was  dangerously  depend- 


^  BOTH  SIDES  Of  THE  TARIFF  QUESTKM 

ent  upon  foreign  supplies  for  articles  essential  to  its  preservatioil. 
This  is  a  fast  country,  and  we  expect  much  to  be  accomplished  in 
thirty  years  ;  and  we  ask  if  this  long  period  is  not  quite  sufficieiit 
to  develop  manufactures  to  their  utmost  possible  efficiency.  Is  it 
an  easy  matter,  then,  to  introduce  and  establish  in  a  new  country 
an  important  branch  of  industry  ?  What  has  been  our  experi- 
ence ?  We  will  take  the  vital  article  of  steel.  When  the  duty 
upon  steel  was  raised  to  a  point  which  tempted  capital  to  engage 
in  the  experiment  of  making  crucible  steel  in  this  country,  Mr. 
James  Park,  of  Pittsburg,  became  the  pioneer  in  the  experi- 
ment. His  repeated  trips  to  Europe  to  secure  skilled  workmen, 
the  enormous  prices  which  he  had  to  pay  to  induce  them  to  leave 
their  homes,  and  the  grave  financial  and  other  difficulties  which 
he  encountered  and  surmounted,  render  the  life  of  this  man 
memorable.  Even  after  he  had  succeeded  in  making  good  steel, 
it  was  years  before  he  could  induce  consumers  to  fairly  try  the 
home-made  article. 

The  effort  to  introduce  Bessemer  steel  in  the  United  States 
is  nothing  but  a  record  of  disaster  for  many  years.  The  first 
attempt  at  Milwaukee  ruined  the  pioneers.  The  works  at 
Troy  were  sold  for  not  many  more  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars  than  millions  had  been  spent  upon  them.  The  Freedom 
Iron  Company,  of  Pennsylvania,  bankrupted  itself  in  trying  to  in- 
troduce the  process.  The  Vulcan  steel  rail  mills,  at  St.  Louis, 
were  twice  sold  by  the  sheriff.  The  steel- rail  works  at  Joliet 
were  also  sold  by  the  same  official.  The  Pennsylvania  Steel  Com- 
pany became  embarrassed,  but  fortunately  received  aid  to  the 
extent  of  $600,000  from  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company. 
Even  the  great  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  had  to  mortgage  its 
plant.  These  efforts  began  in  1860,  and  all  took  place  previous 
to  the  year  1873.  It  was  not  until  that  year  that  there  was  made 
as  much  as  one  hundred  thousand  tons  of  steel  in  all  this  country. 
Up  to  1881  there  never  was  a  year  during  which  the  United 
States  made  a  million  tons.  In  that  year  the  industry  can  be 
said  to  have  taken  firm  root.  The  Bessemer-steel  manufacture 
was,  therefore,  successfully  introduced  only  after  many  years  of 
effort  and  after  millions  of  dollars  had  been  lost.  Now,  this  was 
only  nine  years  ago.  How  has  the  rate  of  duty  kept  pace  with 
this  development  ?  By  successive  reductions  40  per  cent,  of  that 
upon  rails  has  already  been  taken  off,  and  the  bill  now  pending 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  207 

in  Congress  fixes  the  future  duty  at  something  less  than  one-half 
of  the  original  duty  imposed.  Thus  do  we  march  through 
temporary  shielding  and  protective  care  to  such  development  as 
enables  duties  to  be  lessened  from  time  to  time. 

Let  us  take  another  instance, — a  very  important  one, — that  of 
plate  glass,  in  which  the  nation  has  made  its  most  triumphant 
industrial  success  in  recent  years.  It  is  twenty-one  years  since  its 
manufacture  was  begun  upon  a  small  scale  in  this  country.  In  New 
Albany,  Ind.,  several  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  were  sunk 
in  the  experiment,  which  failed.  A  second  attempt  at  Crystal 
City,  Mo.,  ended  in  a  final  sale  of  the  plant  to  St.  Louis  capitalists. 
Works  were  built  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  1872,  and  in  Jefferson,  Ind., 
in  1875,  but  both  proved  failures  financially.  During  all  these 
years,  from  1869  to  1875,  there  was  nothing  but  failure  for  the 
pion&ers,  although  glass  then  sold  as  high  as  $2.50  per  square 
foot.  A  reduction  of  the  tariff  upon  plate  glass  at  this  point 
must  have  indefinitely  postponed  future  attempts.  Fortunately,  the 
tariff  was  not  disturbed.  The  price  still  seemed  tempting,  and  in 
1882,  ten  years  after  the  first  trial,  the  Pittsburg  Plate-Glass 
Works  were  erected.  Success  came  at  last.  It  is  only  through 
such  struggles  as  these  that  a  new  branch  of  manufacturing  is 
successfully  established  in  a  new  country.  To-day  there  are 
eight  companies  making  plate  glass  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
total  production  of  last  year  amounted  to  something  over  nine 
millions  of  square  feet.  The  importations  were  nearly  six  millions 
of  square  feet  in  1888.  Thus  protection  in  America  means  some- 
thing quite  different  from  protection  in  Britain.  So  far  from  the 
manufactures  of  plate-glass  being  a  monopoly,  as  the  growing  of 
cereals  was  under  English  protection,  overproduction  is  threat- 
ened here,  as  in  every  branch  of  manufacturing.  Seven  new  works 
are  being  built  with  great  rapidity.  When  finished,  America  will  be 
able  to  supply  fifteen  millions  of  square  feet  of  glass  per  annum. 
The  price  last  year  fell  in  extreme  cases  to  fifty-nine  cents  per 
foot.  This  was  an  article  which,  as  has  been  seen,  cost  $2.50  before 
the  United  States  entered  the  field.  Protection  has  about  done 
its  work  as  far  as  large  plates  are  concerned,  the  duty  upon  which 
could  alrejidy  be  safely  reduced. 

Our  friends  who  cry  out  that  the  manufacturing  system  of 
America  has  been  fostered  long  enough  should  never  forget  that 
the  struggle  which  the  ArnQriqau  manufactu,rer  has  in  competi.- 


208 


BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 


tion  with  Europe  is  severe.  His  labor-cost  is  more  than  double 
that  of  his  competitor.  Mr.  Clark  and  Mr.  Coats,  manufact- 
urers of  thread,  have  factories  of  similar  character  in  the  old  land 
and  in  the  new.  They  have  both  testified  that  their  labor-cost  in 
Newark  and  in  Rhode  Island  is  slightly  more  than  double  what  it 
is  abroad. 

The  following  statement  was  laid  before  Congress  recently  by 
the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor,  and  as  it  gives  the 
"wages  in  a  branch  which  has  not  yet  been  quoted,  and  which  is  in 
nowise  affected  by  the  tariff,  it  is  well  worthy  of  reproduction 
here.  It  "presents  a  table  giving  the  average  daily  rates  of  pay 
and  the  yearly  earnings  for  such  railroad  employees  in  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  as  are  amenable  to  comparison,"  as 
follows : 


Class  of  Employees. 


Great 
Britain. 


United 
States. 


En^neers,  per  day 

Firemen         "      "    

Conductors   "      "    

Switchmen    "     "    

Flagmen        "      "    

Engineers'  yeaily  earnings 

Firemen's  yearly  earnings 

Conductors'  yearly  earnings. 
Switchmen's  yearly  earnings. 
Flagmen's  yearly  earnings 


11.46 

0.91 

0.97 

0.85 

0.81 

457.00 

285.00 

301.00 

266.00 

254.00 


93.22 

1.79V^ 

2.63 

1.50V^ 

1.13 

1,007.00 

562.00 

824.00 

471  00 

354.00 


It  is  probable,  and  greatly  to  be  hoped,  that  this  great  differ- 
ence will  be  equalized  by  an  advance  in  the  wages  of  labor  in 
Europe,  and  not  by  a  reduction  in  the  wages  here.  But  the  manu- 
facturing system  of  America  may  be  considered  as  not  having  fully 
outrun  the  necessity  for  protection  so  long  as  it  is  handicapped 
in  the  race  with  double  labor-cost.  Notwithstanding  this,  it  is 
marching  slowly  but  surely  to  a  condition  in  which  it  will,  with 
only  incidental  protection,  have  nothing  to  fear,  even  in  competi- 
tion with  its  most  formidable  rival. 

"We  have  seen  that  the  introduction  of  a  new  manufacturing 
industry  is  no  child's  play.  It  means  ten  to  fifteen  years  of  strug- 
gle and  loss.  It  may  be  estimated,  therefore,  that  one-half  the 
period  since  the  protective  duties  were  imposed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  war  has  been  consumed  in  establishing  the  new  industries. 
During  the  remaining  half  some  industries  have  reached  a  posi- 
tion in  which  less  protection  is  now  necessary;  some  will  soon 
be  able  to  stand  exposure  to  the  competition  of  older  countries. 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  2(.,9 

Other  branches  still  require  fostering  care,  and  the  only  question 
for  the  legislator  is,  after  examination  and  proof  adduced,  to  deter- 
mine how  much,  if  at  all,  in  each  industry  the  import  duties  maybe 
lessened,  and  whether,  owing  to  errors  in  laws  or  in  the  construc- 
tion thereof,  changes  in  the  other  direction  may  be  necessary. 

Mr.  Mills  realizes  that,  if  Mr.  Blaine  be  correct  in  his  claim 
that  the  steady  competition  of  American  manufacturers  has  re- 
duced the  price  of  manufactured  articles,  his  case  is  des- 
perate ;  therefore,  in  regard  to  steel  rails,  which  were  cited 
to  prove  this,  he  boldly  says  :  *'  What  competition  was  there 
among  American  manufacturers  ?  It  was  a  monopoly.  The 
manufacturers  owned  a  patent,  and  there  could  be  no  com- 
petition." Unfortunately  for  Mr.  Mills,  this  is  not  correct. 
American  Bessemer-steel  manufacturers  never  owned  the 
Bessemer  patents.  The  courts  of  the  United  States  adjudged 
Mr.  Kelley,  an  American  citizen,  to  have  valid  claims,  even 
against  Bessemer.  And  the  persons  interested  in  the  Kelley 
claims  settled  with  their  English  friends,  and  thus  obtained 
control  of  the  Bessemer  process  for  the  United  States. 
They  threw  open  the  use  of  the  patents  to  every  individual 
in  the  United  States,  charging  all  alike  one  dollar  per 
ton,  and  this  all  manufacturers  paid.  There  always  has 
been,  and  there  is  to  day,  the  most  active  competition 
between  the  manufacturers  of  steel.  In  seasons  of  great  depres- 
sion an  inexperienced  individual  here  and  there  has  thought  it 
possible  that  ruinous  competition  could  be  prevented  ;  but  it 
has  been  found  impossible,  and  it  always  will  be  impossible  until 
human  nature  changes.  The  American  consumer  has  no  cause 
to  fear  that  any  combinations  among  manufacturers  can  endure, 
for  such  never  have  endured  either  in  Britain  or  elsewhere. 
Four  pounds  of  steel  in  the  form  of  a  rail  for  five  cents  is  con- 
clusive proof  that  the  severest  home  competition  exists. 

The  statement  is  often  made  that,  if  we  did  not  buy  from  for- 
eign nations,  we  could  not  sell  to  them,  and  that  the  prosperity 
of  our  country  greatly  depends  upon  its  exchanging  products  with 
other  nations.  I  desire  to  meet  this  contention.  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge says: 

'*  A  nation,  like  a  man,  can  only  grow  rich  by  producing  more  than  It  uses,  and 
accumulating  year  by  year  the  value  of  that  yearly  surplus.  If,  also,  there  had  been 
subtracted  from  the  wealth  of  America  all  imports  which  were  purchased  by  the 
agricultural  surplus  sent  abroad,  our  industrial  interests  would  be  destroyed.    There 


210  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

can  be  no  jfreater  delusion  than  that  of  a  possible  '  home  market '  in  which  every 
thing  produced  in  America  is  sold  and  in  which  everything  needed  for  America  is 
produced  here  and  sold  here.  The  very  existence  of  our  industries  depends  upon 
commerce— that  is,  upon  the  power  to  import  what  we  need  and  to  pay  for  it  by  what 
we  export;  what  we  export  being  that  surplus  of  our  product  which  remains  after 
our  wants  are  supplied.  Ho  who  buys  must  first  have  something  to  soil,  and  sell  it; 
and  bis  capacity  to  buy  is  precisely  meaaored  by  what  he  obtains  for  that  which  be 
sells." 

Mr.  Mills  says  : 

"  There  can  be  no  surer  test  of  the  prosperity  of  a  country  than  the  increase  of  its 
foreign  trade,  and  no  surer  tost  of  the  retardation  of  that  prosperity  than  tbe 
decrease  of  that  trade." 

The  first  lines  of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  statement  are  true.  A 
nation,  like  a  man,  can  only  grow  rich  by  producing  more  than  it 
uses,  and  accumulating  year  by  year  the  value  of  that  surplus. 
But  when  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  Mills  go  on  to  assume  that 
the  yearly  surplus  made  in  the  United  States  depends  upon  or  is 
measured  by  the  amount  of  foreign  commerce,  they  run  foul  of 
figures.  The  estimated  yearly  increase  of  the  wealth  of  the  United 
States,  in  1880,  was  $1,050,000,000  ;  it  is  now  not  less  than 
11,400,000,000.  The  total  value  of  all  articles  imported  and  exported 
averages  only  this  sum,  $1,400,000,000,  per  year.  If  we  estimate 
the  profit  of  the  business  at  10  per  cent,  upon  the  total  value  of 
the  articles  exchanged,  we  have  1140,000,000  profit  from  foreign 
commerce  ;  and  as  the  foreigner  takes  his  half  of  the  profit,  the 
United  States  are  left  with  an  estimated  profit  yearly  of  $70,000,- 
000  properly  to  be  credited  to  this  exchange. 

It  is  clear  that,  if  the  United  States  buy  abroad  to  provide  for 
their  wants  to  the  full  value  of  what  they  sell  abroad,  no  surplus 
remains  to  be  added  to  the  national  wealth  beyond  the  usual  pro- 
fit, for  the  articles  imported  are  substantially  articles  for  consump- 
tion, and  are  all  consumed,  with  the  exception  of  a  trifling  amount 
invested  in  works  of  art  and  other  permanent  treasures.  It  is  only 
the  surplus  of  our  sales  over  our  purchases  abroad  that  augments 
the  national  wealth  beyond  the  $70,000,000  annual  profit  from 
the  business,  and  this  has  only  amounted  to  an  average  of  $63,- 
000,000  during  the  last  six  years,  the  period  embraced  in  Colonel 
Breckinridge's  statement.  In  1888  the  balance  was  only  twenty- 
seven  millions  of  dollars.  Nevertheless,  no  country  has  ever  added 
so  rapidly  to  its  national  wealth  as  the  United  States  during  those 
years,  but  the  "  surplus"  is  not  to  be  found  in  what  this  country 
se^ls  and  buys  abroad,  but  in  every  mile  of  railroad,  every  house 
built,  every  animal  added  to  our  flocks  and  herds,  and  every  ncre 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  211 

reclaimed  here  at  home.  In  the  development  of  her  own  territory 
and  its  contents,  the  United  States  invests  her  yearly  surplus  of 
fourteen  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  I  say  only  fourteen  be- 
cause I  wish  always  to  understate,  though  quite  aware  that  the 
experts  expect  tlie  forthcoming  census  to  show  that  in  the  decade 
'from  1880  to  1890  not  less  than  11,900,000,000  was  added  yearly 
to  the  national  wealth,  and  that  now  its  augmentation  is  at  the 
rate  of  two  thousand  millions  per  annum.  What  becomes  of  for 
eign  commerce  in  the  face  of  figures  like  these  ?  If  it  were  all  profit, 
if  every  article  we  sent  abroad  cost  nothing  and  every  article  ob- 
tained abroad  were  presented  to  us  gratis,  the  total  value  would 
not  be  as  great  as  the  annual  increase  of  the  nation's  wealth. 
Thus  if  we  neither  imported  nor  exported  a  dollar's  worth, 
losing  thereby  a  market  for  4  per  cent,  of  our  products,  this 
loss  would  only  equal  one  year's  gain. 

I  take  issue  with  Colonel  Breckinridge  when  he  says  that  there 
'*  can  be  no  greater  delusion  than  that  of  a  possible  home  market  in 
which  everything  produced  in  America  is  sold,  and  in  which  every- 
thing needed  for  America  is  purchased  here  and  sold  here."  "  I 
think  that,  instead  of  this  being  a  delusion,  it  is  sober  truth; 
and,  as  far  as  the  production  of  articles  goes,  we  seem  to  have  the 
gallant  Colonel  with  us,  for  he  says,  quoting  from  Senator  Mor- 
rill's able  essay,  that  "  the  Senator  admits  "  that  we  are  able  "  to 
make  an  article  '  superior  to  and  cheaper  than  similar  articles  pro- 
duced abroad.'  .  .  .  We  agree  with  the  Senator  that  we  are  ca- 
pable of  accomplishing  this  result.  We  have  no  doubt  that,  by  re- 
moving the  trammels  upon  the  introduction  of  the  foreign  ma- 
terial needed,  giving  at  once  to  the  American  workman  equal 
advantages  with  his  foreign  competitor,  this  could  he  said  of  all 
American  manufacturers."  We  ask  the  Colonel,  If  this  be  true, 
what  would  become  of  our  sacred  foreign  commerce  as  far  as  the 
purchase  of  manufactures  abroad  is  concerned  ?  And  if  the  for- 
eigner  cannot  buy  our  products  unless  we  buy  his  manufactures, 
what  would  become  of  the  other  half  of  this  foreign  business  which 
is  said  to  be  vital  to  our  prosperity  ?  Our  free-trade  economists 
would  naturally  predict  that  the  Republic  in  that  case  must  go  to 
ruin  ;  but  no — it  would  simply  make  up  the  small  percentage  lost 
in  one  year's  increase  of  its  enormous  domestic  operations. 

Will  Colonel  Breckinridge  kindly  look  over  the  list  of  articles 
imported,  and  specify  what  cannot  ultimately  be  made  here  ?    1 


212  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

have  done  so,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few  trifling  ar- 
ticles., which  fancy  and  sentiment  will  always  induce  rich  people 
to  select,  even  if  similar  articles  could  be  obtained  at  home,  I 
know  of  nothing  important.  Can  any  one  name  one  necessary  of 
life,  for  instance,  which  the  United  States  is  not  producing  ?  We 
have  seen  that  the  amount  that  the  country  buys  and  sells  from 
abroad  is  lessening  every  year  in  proportion  to  the  amount  sup- 
plied at  home.  As  the  Colonel  says  (page  526),  only  5  per  cent. 
of  our  products  went  abroad  (census  of  1880);  now  less  than  4  per 
cent.  What  point  in  the  descending  scale  would  the  Colonel 
fix  as  that  where  the  descent  should  stop  ?  If  at  3  percent.,  1900 
would  surely  show  him  to  be  wrong.  If  at  2  per  cent.,  1910 
would  disprove  his  claims  to  the  gift  of  prophecy. 

Then  again,  the  population  of  the  United  States  is  increas- 
ing at  the  rate  of  nearly  two  millions  per  annum.  If  it  con- 
tinues to  increase  with  even  a  little  less  rapidity  than  its 
normal  rate,  there  are  persons  now  living  who  will  see  the 
population  under  the  Stars  and  Stripes  more  than  500  millions. 
The  country  will  then  probably  require  its  food  supply  for  its  own 
people.  If  not  then,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  the  population 
will  increase  here  until  it  requires  all  the  product  of  the  soil. 
Colonel  Breckinridge,  in  my  opinion,  does  not  realize  the  unique 
position  of  his  country.  It  is,  indeed,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  says,  a 
world  within  itself ;  and  nothing  is  surer  than  that  in  the  near 
future  it  will  play  the  part  of  a  world,  consume  its  own  products, 
and  supply  its  own  manufactured  articles.  Even  if  every  port  of 
the  United  States  were  blockaded  to-day,  and  remained  so  for 
ten  years,  the  people  of  the' United  States  would  suffer  only  some 
inconveniences  and  disturbance  of  values.  The  products  of  the 
joil  would  be  cheaper  for  a  time,  until  the  population  increased 
enough  to  absorb  the  paltry  4  per  cent,  of  them  taken  by  the 
foreigner.  The  entire  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country, 
on  the  other  hand,  would  be  increased.  There  would  be  abundance 
of  food,  clothing,  and  shelter.  Sugar,  tea,  and  coffee  would  be 
scarce  and  dear,  but  a  good  deal  would  evade  any  possible  block- 
ade. Many  new  and  important  sources  of  national  wealth  would 
be  discovered,  and  substitutes  provided  for  such  things  as  we  now 
import,  to  an  extent  which  would  surprise  the  world.  And  the 
country  would  emerge  at  the  end  of  the  embargo  more  self-con- 
tained, more  powerful,  richer,  and  more  independent  of  other 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  213 

nations  than  she  is  to-day.  So  far  have  our  manufacturing  indus- 
tries developed;  so  far  have  we  travelled  upon  the  path  which  is 
making  the  United  States  in  reality  a  world  within  itself. 

No  one  desires  the  closing  of  our  ports  :  the  country  is  prosper- 
ing too  well  to  welcome  any  change;  but  it  is  well  for  us  to  know, 
and  for  other  nations  to  understand,  that  it  would  only  be  disturb- 
ing and  inconvenient,  not  serious,  nor  in  any  way  dangerous  to  the 
life  and  prosperity  of  this  world  within  itself.  The  outside  world 
will  do  well  to  note  that  the  assailant  who  blockades  the  ports  of 
the  United  States  will  suffer  ten-fold  more  by  the  operation  than 
the  Kepublic. 

It  may  be  doubted  if  a  more  erroneous  statement  was  ever 
made  than  that  for  which  Mr.  Mills  makes  himself  responsible 
when  he  says  that  there  can  be  no  surer  test  of  the  retardation  of 
national  prosperity  than  the  decrease  of  foreign  trade.  Let  us 
consider  the  situation.  Foreign  commerce  is  decreasing.  The 
United  States  are  more  and  more  supplying  their  own  wants,  and 
importing  relatively  less  from  other  countries.  They  are  also 
consuming  a  larger  portion  of  their  own  products,  and  exporting 
relatively  less  to  other  countries.  Foreign  commerce  reached  the 
highest  mark  in  1880,  1881,  1882,  and  1883,  averaging  for  those 
years  11,500,000,000  per  annum.  It  has  not  reached  that  figure 
since,  the  average  per  annum  since  then  being  about  $100,000,000 
less.  In  1888  it  was  $1,418,000,000.*  If  the  gauge  of  the 
country's  prosperity  be  the  condition  of  its  foreign  commerce,  as 
Mr.  Mills  asserts,  one  trembles  for  the  forthcoming  census  when 
Mr.  Mills  next  ventures  to  lift  his  powerful  pen  in  support  of  his 
theory,  for  the  census  is  to  assert  that  during  the  ten  years  under 
consideration,  when  foreign  commerce  actually  declined,  no 
nation  ever  made  wealth  so  fast.  One  wonders  how  Mr.  Mills 
will  reconcile  this  fact  with  his  theory. 

Great  Britain  is  usually  cited,  and  very  justly  so,  by  our  Tariff- 
Reformers  as  wondrously  prosperous.  Next  to  the  United  States 
she  is  gaining  fastest  in  wealth.  How  does  Mr.  Mills's  theory 
work  when  applied  to  her  ?  The  foreign  commerce  of  that  great 
little  giant  for  the  decade  1878  to  1887,  inclusive,  did  not  in- 
crease, but  it  has  actually  decreased  since  1880.  The  total  was 
in  tluit  year  £097,000,000  ;  in  1881,  £694,000,000 ;  in  1882  it 
reached  £719,000,000,  and  in   1883,  £732,000,000,  which  is  the 

*  Americar  Almanac,  1889,  page  72, 


214  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

highest  mark.  In  every  year  since,  the  foreign  commerce  of 
Britain  has  fallen,  until  in  1887,  the  last  year  given,  £642,000,- 
000*  was  the  total.  Thus  the  foreign  commerce  of  both  the 
great  English-speaking  lands  has  declined  during  years  when  the 
population  and  wealth  of  both  have  increased  apace.  The  fact  is 
that  even  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain,  the  country  which  exports 
and  imports  most,  and  to  which  foreign  commerce,  therefore,  is 
far  more  important  than  to  any  other  country,  it  is  not  the  chief 
cause  of  prosperity  or  of  the  increase  of  national  wealth. 

It  is  high  time  that  this  little  braggart,  foreign  commerce, 
should  be  exposed  and  dethroned.  Our  exports  only  amount  to 
4  per  cent,  of  our  products,  and  yet  make  more  noise  than  the 
96  per  cent,  which  does  its  far  more  valuable  work  quietly  at 
home.  If,  therefore,  the  United  States  produced  next  year  only 
what  they  produce  this  year,  the  year  after  next,  according  to  the 
census,  would  find  the  total  loss  of  foreign  sales  fully  made  up  by 
increased  consumption  at  home.  Allowing  for  the  temporary  dis- 
turbance that  would  arise,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  a  very  few  years 
would  restore  the  loss,  so  rapidly  is  our  country  increasing. 

Mr.  Mills  represents  a  cotton-growing  State.  By  taking  cot- 
ton as  an  illustration,  I  can,  perhaps,  best  enable  him  to  under- 
stand why  the  reverse  of  his  proposition  is  true  ;  why  the 
genuine  prosperity  of  the  United  States  requires  that  its  foreign 
commerce  shall  year  by  year  fall  away,  as  compared  with  its  home 
commerce,  until  it  fades  into  insignificance.  Even  the  puny  4 
per  cent,  of  the  country's  total  commerce  which  our  exports  now 
represent — leaving,  as  Colonel  Breckinridge  says  (page  526),  un- 
hampered 96  per  cent,  of  our  products  for  consumption  at 
home — will  be  considered  enormous  when  the  census  of  1890  is 
taken.  Here  is  the  reason  :  In  1830  the  United  States  con- 
sumed only  52,000,000  pounds  of  cotton  grown  here.  In  1880 
they  consumed  962,000,000  pounds.  In  1830  the  great  crop 
of  the  South  went  to  the  foreigner,  to  swell  the  records  of  foreign 
commerce.  Now,  when  we  manufacture  at  home  more  .of  the  cot- 
ton we  grow,  the  credit  is  transferred  from  foreign  commerce  to 
domestic  commerce.  One  gains  ;  the  other  loses.  It  is  precisely 
the  same  with  all  exports  of  grain,  provisions,  petroleum,  and 
other  articles,  and  with  all  imports  of  iron,  woollen  goods,  plate 
glass,  and  manufactures  in  general.     The  true  test  of  the  pros- 

*  StatesiPaQ's  Year-Book,  1888,  page  289. 


SUMMING  UP  TtlE  TARIFF  DISCUS^IOS^  gig 

perity  of  this  country  is  to  be  found  in  the  increase  of  its  domes- 
tic commerce,  and  the  relative  decline  of  its  foreign  commerce. 

Now  let  me  point  out  the  difference  between  the  two.  All 
exchange  is  a  matter  of  profit  between  the  two  parties  thereto. 
If  the  manufacturer  of  New  England  send  his  product  to  Texas, 
and  receive  in  return  the  product  of  Texas,  what  happens  ?  The 
Texan  is  benefited,  and  the  New-Englander  is  benefited  like- 
wise. They  share  all  the  profits  of  the  transaction  between  them. 
If  the  Texan  send  his  product  to  Britain,  and  receive  in  return 
the  product  of  Britain,  what  happens  ?  The  Texan  and  the 
Briton  are  benefited.  In  the  former  case  all  the  profit  goes  to 
ourselves — Americans  ;  and  in  the  latter  case  our  people  and  our 
country  receive  only  half  the  profit.  The  one  transaction  is  as 
clearly  commerce  as  the  other  :  commodities  are  exchanged. 

When  Mr.  Mills  would  measure  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of 
his  country,  he  must  seek  causes  much  more  potent  than 
its  foreign  commerce.  The  manufacturing  development  of  the 
South,  for  instance,  is  a  much  greater  factor  in  the  creation 
of  national  wealth,  which  now  reaches  about  $2,000,000,000  per 
annum.  The  exchange  of  commodities  with  the  foreigner,  which 
we  dignify  by  the  name  of  foreign  commerce,  and  which  does  not 
to-day  amount  to  4  per  cent,  of  our  total  products,  is  much  too 
small  a  tail  to  wag  so  big  a  dog. 

Figures  are  such  strange  things  !  When  Colonel  Breckinridge 
says  (page  521,  North  American  Review)  that  "from  January 
1,  1884,  to  January  1,  1890,  we  exported  of  domestic  products 
the  enormous  sum  of  14,304,086,830,"  it  no  doubt  seemed  to  him 
he  had  said  something  most  impressive.  Seven  hundred  millions 
per  year  !  But  when  one  whispers  to  him  that  the  value  of  our 
home  manufactures  every  year  is  more  than  $7,000,000,000,  how 
foreign  commerce  shrivels  !  The  best  way  to.measure  a  pigmy  is 
to  put  a  real  giant  alongside.  Exports  are  one  foot  high  and 
home  manufactures  ten. 

It  is  urged  that,  unless  we  buy  the  products  of  Britain,  she 
cannot  buy  ours.  Let  us  consider  this  contention,  and  see  whether 
nations  buy  and  sell  with  each  other  to  an  equal  extent,  or  if  what 
one  buys  influences  what  the  other  sells.  Britain  buys  every  year 
about  $100,000,000  more  from  us  than  we  from  her,  while  we  buy 
every  year  about  $100,000,000  more  from  South  American  countries 
than  we  sell  them.  British  North  America  sends  to  Britain  30  per 


516  60TH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTldK 

cent,  more  than  she  buys  from  lier,  the  figures  for  1886  being :  ex- 
ports, £10,000,415  ;  purchases,  £7,000,880.  Ceylon  has  never 
bought  from  Britain  much  more  than  a  quarter  of  what  she  sells 
her,  the  figures  for  1886  being  :  exports,  £2,083,636;  purchases, 
£582,800.  The  Argentine  Republic,  being,  like  the  United  States, 
a  growing  country,  only  sells  to  Britain  £1,646,000  per  year; 
she  buys  from  her  £5,190,000 — more  tlian  three  times  as  much  as 
she  sells.  British  Guiana  is  in  the  same  condition.  She  always 
sends  to  Britain  nearly  three  times  what  she  buys  from  her,  the 
figures  for  1886  being  £1,383,379  exports,  and  £582,880  im- 
ports. 

What  is  to  prevent  Britain  from  paying  us  every  year  if  we  did 
not  take  one  dollar's  worth  of  her  products  in  return  ?  or  the  United 
States,  out  of  their  enormous  accumulation  of  wealth  every  year, 
from  buying  more  from  South  America  than  they  sell  to  it?  It  is 
said  that,  if  one  country  imports  more  from  another,  it  must 
'sell  more  than  it  imports  to  some  other.  This  is  not  necessarily 
true,  because  it  can  draw  upon  its  annual  increase  of  wealth  to 
make  good  its  greater  purchases,  just  as  Britain  does,  which  has  a 
balance  against  her  every  year  of  about  five  hundred  millions  of 
dollars;  but  even  if  it  were  true,  what  bearing  would  it  have  upon  the 
question  whether  Great  Britain  and  other  countries  would  not  con- 
tinue to  buy  the  petroleum,  cotton,  grain,  and  provisions  of  the 
United  States  as  long  as  the  United  States  could  furnish  these 
articles  to  the  advantage  of  the  buyer,  as  she  does  now?  The 
merchants  who  buy  cotton  or  provisions  upon  the  Liverpool  ex- 
change are  not  the  same  merchants  who  sell  the  woollens  and  iron 
and  steel  of  Britain.  They  scarcely  know  each  other,  and  are 
totally  ignorant  of  each  others'  transactions.  The  one  does  not 
care  where  or  from  whom  the  other  buys.  It  is  a  simple 
question  where  they  can  buy  or  where  they  can  sell  to  the  best 
advantage.  The  merchant  in  Liverpool  buying  our  products  does 
not  care  whether  the  manufacturer  of  Manchester  sells  a  pound  of 
goods  to  the  United  States  or  not.  As  Major  McKinley  well  says 
(North  American  Review  for  June,  page  747),  free  trade 
would  not  increase  the  sale  of  our  products  abroad.  Other  coun- 
tries buy  of  us  what  they  need — no  more,  no  less.  Britain  sends 
to  the  United  States  only  from  150  to  180  millions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  goods  per  annum.  Suppose  she  did  not  send  one  dollar's 
worth.     The  world  grows  so  rapidly  that  the  void  would  soon  be 


SUMMING  UP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  217 

filled.  She  has  only  to  cease  expanding  for  a  short  season  and  her 
other  customers  would  absorb  her  present  production.  Her  Amer- 
ican trade  only  amounts  to  about  10  per  cent,  of  her  total  exports, 
and  this'could  be  easily  made  up.  As  for  Britain  not  being  able 
to  pay  for  what  she  buys  unless  we  take  her  products  in  return, 
what  becomes  of  that  contention  when  Mr.  GifFen  has  just  proved* 
that  the  annual  increase  of  Britain's  wealth  exceeds  $900,000,000? 
A  nation  with  a  net  income  like  that  is  able  to  buy  largely  and  is 
good  for  all  she  will  buy. 

It  is  said  that,  if  free  trade  were  adopted,  so  enormous  would 
be  the  demands  thrown  by  the  United  States  upon  European 
manufacturers  that  prices  would  advance  to  such  a  point  as  to 
enable  American  manufacturers  to  continue  operating  their 
works.  If  this  be  correct,  let  me  ask  what  benefit  would  ensue 
to  the  American  consumer?  If  the  only  result  of  a  change  of 
policy  be  that  matters  shall  remain  as  they  are  as  to  prices,  I  sub- 
mit that  change  in  itself  in  our  fiscal  policy  is  a  serious  obstacle 
to  prosperity.  To  justify  change  we  should  have  decided  advan- 
tages in  view.  It  is,  of  course,  a  matter  of  opinion  how  far  in- 
creased demand  upon  European  resources  would  enhance  prices. 
It  would  do  so  temporarily  without  question  ;  but  Europe  hitherto 
has  been  able  to  respond  to  all  demands  made  upon  it  by  the 
world,  and  I  believe  such  will  be  the  case  in  the  future. 
We  are  probably  soon  to  see  iron  and  steel  in  Britain  as  low  as 
they  ever  have  been.  I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  textile  manu- 
factures of  Europe  cannot  be  doubled  or  trebled.  The  belief 
referred  to  is,  in  my  opinion,  without  foundation ;  but,  assum- 
ing that  it  proved  true,  the  foreign  manufacturers  would  then 
run  to  their  fullest  capacity,  and  the  American  only  be  called 
upon  furtively  to  make  what  his  British  competitor  could  not. 
He  would  cease  to  be  the  principal  factor  in  supplying  his  own 
market,  and  be  relegated  to  the  position  of  humbly  taking  the 
crumbs  which  fell  from  the  table  of  the  foreigner,  while  the  con- 
sumer would  receive  no  advantage  whatever.  So  that,  if  the 
theory  be  true  that  free  trade  here  would  cause  prices  to  rise  in 
Europe,  this  country  would  gain  nothing  ;  and  if  it  proved  un- 
sound, the  whole  manufacturing  systeni  of  America  would  be  de- 
moralized. Is  it  worth  while  for  the  United  States  to  play  with 
the  foreigner  the  game  of  *'  heads  you  win  and  tails  we  lose  "  ? 

•  Speech  of  Robert  Giffen,  British  Board  of  Trade,  at  Leeds,  February,  189a 


218  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

We  have  not  yet  noticed  the  charge  that  protection  is  artifi- 
cial. Mr.  Gladstone  holds  that  all  interference  by  the  govern- 
ment in  order  to  encourage  a  dearer  method  at  home,  in  prefer- 
ence to  a  cheaper  production  abroad,  may  naturally  be  termed 
artificial.  Those  in  favor  of  establishing  new  manufactures  in  a 
new  country  believe  that  eventually  the  price  of  articles  produced 
will  not  only  be  less  than  the  consumer  would  have  to  pay  if  his 
country  did  not  produce  these  articles  and  he  were  dependent 
upon  a  foreign  power  for  his  supply,  but  that  he  will  have  a  surer 
source  of  supply;  that  there  are  great  incidental  advantages  in 
bringing  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer  in  close  proximity. 
Freight  can  be  saved,  which  augments  profits  ;  delivery  can  be 
hastened,  mistakes  corrected,  and  important  consultations  had 
between  parties — an  impossibility  if  they  were  thousands  of  miles 
apart. 

We  gladly  admit  the  charge,  however,  that  protection  is  entirely 
artificial — not  less  so  than  the  protection  given  by  the  market- 
gardener  to  his  young  plants,  which  he  covers  with  a  sunshade 
through  the  day,  and  over  which  he  thoughtfully  throws  a 
straw  mat  at  night  ;  as  artificial  as  the  frame  in  which  the  fond 
mother  teaches  her  infant  to  walk,  and  not  less  so  than  the  aid 
given  by  Mr.  Gladstone  to  the  young  tree  which  he  plants  in 
Hawarden  grounds,  binding  it  to  the  artificial  stake  that  he  drives 
beside  it,  that  the  sapling  may  grow  to  a  stately  tree.  What  is  there 
of  man's  triumphs  in  any  branch  of  his  activity  that  is  not  artifi- 
cial ?  When  applied  as  Mr.  Gladstone  applies  it  here,  it  seems 
to  mean  no  more  than  cultivation  when  applied  to  the  soil, 
and  the  United  States  have  proved  not  only  that  the  soil  must  be 
cultivated  to  produce  agricultural  products,  but  that  a  nation, 
as  sagaciously  understood  by  John  Stuart  Mill,  can  "  cultivate  " 
the  production  of  many  of  the  principal  articles  which  are  almost 
as  essential  to  its  rank,  power,  and  prosperity  as  food  itself.  The 
Protectionist  pleads  guilty  to  the  charge,  and  awaits  sentence. 

There  remains  the  charge  of  monopoly.  As  I  have  explained, 
the  only  protection  known  to  Mr.  Gladstone  constituted  a  monop- 
oly. He  has  no  experience  of  any  other.  He  is  to  be  excused.  But 
what  shall  be  said  of  Messrs.  Mills  and  Breckinridge?  What  would 
Mr.  Gladstone  say  to  these  gentlemen  if  they  told  him  of  a  monopoly 
into  which  every  dollar  of  the  capital  of  the  world  is  free  to  enter  ? 
— a  monopoly  in  which  many  of  the  leading  manufacturers  of  Mr. 


fiUMMtN^  VP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  219 

Gladstone's  country  are  busily  engaged — the  Clarks  and  the 
Coatses,  of  Paisley  ;  the  jJ^airns,  of  Kirkcaldy  ;  the  Salts,  of  Salt- 
aire ;  the  Sandersons,  of  Sheffield  ;  the  Kerrs,  of  Glasgow ;  the 
Barbours,  of  Belfast,  and  scores  of  others  ;  a  monopoly  free  to  all, 
without  regard  to  citizenship  or  residence  ;  a  monopoly  to  which 
there  is  no  limit ;  a  monopoly  in  which  one  hundred  and  forty- 
seven  new  and  important  competing  manufacturing  establish- 
ments are  under  construction  to-day  in  one  section  alone,  that  of 
the  South,  so  ably  represented  by  these  writers  ! 

My  capital  is  wholly  invested  in  manufacturing,  and  if  there 
be  any  monopoly  in  the  entire  domain,  I  should  like  to  discover 
it.  If  unusual  profits  are  being  made  in  any  branch  of  manufact- 
uring, why  do  not  Mr.  Mills  and  those  who  think  with  him 
invest  and  share  these  grand  returns,  and  by  so  doing  strike  down 
the  "monopoly"?  There  is  no  branch  of  manufacturing  into 
which  they  cannot  put  1100  or  $100,000  ;  the  shares  of  silk  and 
glass  and  wool  and  iron  and  steel  concerns  are  freely  bought 
and  sold  in  the  open  market.  Those  who  believe  that  any  indus- 
try gives  its  owners  great  profits  have  only  to  select  the  industry 
and  invest.  Into  the  woollen  industry,  for  instance,  investors 
to-day  can  enter  for  much  less  than  its  present  owners  did.  In 
that  of  glass  splendid  opportunities  for  investment  are  surely 
at  hand.  In  the  iron  and  steel  branch,  with  which  I  am  famil- 
iar, any  citizen  of  the  United  States  who  has  $100  can  become 
part  owner  to-morrow;  he  can  purchase  the  shares  of  almost  all 
the  steel  concerns  at  much  less  than  the  capital  actually  invested. 
The  shares  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Company,  the  Bethlehem  Company, 
Pennsylvania  Steel  Company,  the  Cambria  Company,  the  Troy 
Company,  as  a  rule,  do  not  command  in  the  market  the  actual 
number  of  dollars  invested.  But  I  must  not  be  understood  as 
advising  any  one  to  invest  too  largely  upon  tlie  theory  that  the 
returns  will  meet  his  expectations.  The  charge  that  manufact- 
ures in  America  are  monopolies  is  without  foundation,  although 
it  may  still  pass  current  in  a  rural  community  when  delivered  from 
the  stump  in  Texas.  I  should  like  to  be  present  to  see  Mr. 
Gladstone's  expressive  face,  and  hear  his  response,  if  these  gentle- 
men ever  spoke  to  him  of  "a  monopoly  free  to  all."  That  word 
"monopoly''  will  do  service  no  longer;  our  friends  had  better  try 
Mrs.  Malaprop's  famous  "  allegory  "  at  once.  It  would  apply  just 
as  well,  and  have  the  advantage  of  being  new. 


220  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Mr.  Gladstone  says  that,  when  the  United  States  get  rid  of  tlio 
"barbarism"  of  protection,  we  shall  get  a  copyright  law.  It  is 
to  be  regretted  that  this  most  desirable  result  received  such  a  blow 
at  the  moment  when  a  copyright  bill  was  pending.  Mr.  Gladstone 
will  never  get  a  copyright  law  in  this  country  except  through 
those  who  believe  in  protecting  home  industries.  Strange  as  it 
may  appear  to  him,  the  leaders  of  the  Republican  party  are  its 
strenuous  advocates,  and  only  that  party  can  boast  that  a  major- 
ity of  its  Representatives  in  Congress  voted  for  the  measure. 
The  only  protection  of  which  Mr.  Gladstone  has  had  experience, 
however,  was  barbaric,  just  as  it  was  monopolistic.  But  protec- 
tion as  we  have  it  is  a  "  barbarism  "  indulged  in  by  every  nation, 
and  to  some  extent,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  nation  of  the  states- 
man who  uses  the  word  and  by  all  the  component  parts  of  that 
great  empire  itself,  except  one  trifling  dependency.  The  "  bar- 
barism" of  France,  the  "barbarism"  of  Germany,  the  "barbar- 
ism" of  the  United  States,  the  "  barbarism ''  of  Canada  and 
Australia,  the  "  barbarism"  of  all  the  civilized  world,  Britain  alone 
excepted  !  Ah,  well !  I  remember  it  was  my  fellow-countryman, 
as  Mr.  Gladstone  is,  who  prayed,  "  0  Lord,  gie  us  a  gude  conceit 
o'  oorsel ! " 

AVhile  believing  in  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  which  has  been 
pursued  by  the  United  States  for  the  past  thirty  years  as  being 
the  policy  best  for  her,  I  do  not  assume  that  the  other  nations 
and  colonies  of  the  world  which  are  following  our  example  are 
wise  in  so  doing.  This  is  a  matter  to  be  determined  each  for  itself 
by  a  very  careful  study  of  its  latent  powers  and  possibilities  and  by 
judicious  experiment.  No  stranger  can  be  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  these  countries  to  venture  an  intelligent  opinion.  An  im- 
pression I  have,  however,  that  some  of  them,  unfortunately,  can 
never  be  made  great  nations  —  much  less  worlds  within  them- 
selves —  by  any  system  of  protection  or  by  any  effort.  The  pro- 
tection offered  may  not  induce  capital  to  enter  the  manufacturing 
field.  Their  experience  as  to  manufactures  in  general  may  be  ours 
regarding  sugar,  or  what  it  would  be  if  we  attempted  to  supply 
ourselves,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  suggests,  with  pineapples.  It  takes 
a  world  within  itself  to  become  independent  of  the  outside  world 
as  to  those  articles  which  are  essential  to  give  it  rank  as  the  fore- 
most power  of  the  world.  That  free  trade  is  not  only  one  of  the 
best  policies,  but  the  only  policy  possible  for  Britain,  seems  to  me 


l^VMMtNG  tJP  THE  TARIFF  DISCUSSION.  221 

indisputable.  It  may  be,  and  probably  is,  the  best  policy  for 
several  of  the  new  countries,  for  it  is  folly  to  protect  unless  the 
fruits  of  protection  can  be  gathered. 

Now,  I  believe,  every  point  brought  forward  by  our  free-trade 
friends  has  been  considered  :  First,  the  policy  of  protection  in 
itself  ;  second,  that  the  infantile  stage  has  passed  ;  third,  that  if 
we  do  not  buy  from  abroad,  foreign  nations  cannot  purchase  from 
us  ;  fourth,  that  our  nation's  prosperity  and  wealth  are  to  be  best 
gauged  by  the  extent  of  its  dealings  with  other  countries  ; 
fifth,  that  protection  creates  monopolies.  There  remains  now 
only  to  point  out  what  seems  the  course  of  wisdom  in  the  present 
position  of  affairs. 

As  stated  by  Colonel  Breckinridge,  it  is  not  practicable  to 
raise  the  necessary  revenues  for  the  general  government  without 
giving  incidental  protection  to  manufactures.  If  sugar  be  made 
free,  as  is  probable,  and  the  whiskey  tax  considered  a  fund  from 
which  pensions  are  to  be  paid,  sufficient  duties  must  be  levied 
upon  imports  to  give  all  the  protection  that  is  now  necessary  to 
maintain  and  develop  our  manufacturing  industries.  It  is  only  a 
question  how  these  duties  can  be  most  judiciously  imposed;  and 
here  the  legislator  has  a  sure  rule  for  his  guidance.  From  it  he 
need  not  be  swayed,  either  to  the  right  or  to  the  left. 

Let  me  illustrate.  The  principal  articles  protected  are 
woollens,  cotton,  silks,  and  iron  and  steel.  In  1880  our  imports 
of  woollens  amounted  to  $33,911,000  ;  in  1888  to  $63,612,000. 
The  natural  comment  is  that  there  is  something  wrong  here.  The 
foreigner  is  gaining  too  fast.  He  has  nearly  doubled  his  business 
with  us  during  eight  years.  We  have  not  far  to  seek  for  the 
reason.  By  making  the  law  express  clearly  what  was  meant  by  its 
framers,  the  McKinley  Bill  just  passed  by  the  House  will  restore 
to  the  American  manufacturer  that  of  which  it  was  never  intended 
to  deprive  him.  Our  cotton  imports  in  1880  were  $29,929,000  ;  in 
1888,  $28,917,000.  The  comment  here  is  that  the  American  manu- 
facturer is  holding  his  own,  and  obtaining  the  increase  of  busi- 
ness. Speaking  generally,  duties  upon  cotton  should  remain  as  they 
are,  change  in  some  details  perhaps  being  required.  The  imports 
of  silk  in  1880  were  $44,213,000  ;  in  1888,  $41,287,000.  Here  it  is 
much  as  with  cottons  ;  the  American  manufacturer  is  not  being 
driven  out  of  his  market,  but  is  holding  his  own.  Of  iron  and 
steel  in  1880  the  imports  were  $53,714,000 ;  in  1888,  $48,992,000. 


^2  SOTH  SlDEl^  OF  THE  TARtFP  QVESTI6^\ 

These  figures  prove  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  gaining  iii 
some  branches  upon  his  foreign  competitor,  and  upon  the  articles 
whicli  show  decreased  imports  duties  may  be  safely  reduced.  The 
McKinley  Bill  does  this.  There  is  no  place  for  partisanship  in 
this  question.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  figures.  They  tell  their 
own  story,  and  it  would  seem  that  only  a  very  obtuse  legislator 
could  fail  to  read  correctly  the  lesson  they  convey.  In  all  cases 
of  doubt  he  should  err  on  the  safe  side.  Much  better  continue 
protection,  even  if  it  be  a  shade  higher  than  actually  necessary, 
than  run  the  risk  of  crippling  any  branch  ;  because,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  is  not  easy  to  establish  new  industries  in  a  country,  and  it 
would  be  much  less  easy  to  resuscitate  one  which,  having  made  a 
fair  start,  had  gone  down  in  the  struggle. 

Such  are  the  wonderful  resources  of  this  Union  of  forty-two 
States,  and  such  is  the  inventive  genius  of  our  people,  that  very  few 
articles  indeed  will  not  eventually  be  produced  within  its  borders 
and  furnished  to  the  consumer  at  prices  substantially  as  low  as  they 
can  be  imported  from  Europe.  Some  leading  articles  are  already 
as  low,  and  others  are  fast  approaching  this  standard.  No 
branch  of  manufacturing  can  long  reap  more  than  the  normal 
profit  derivable  from  capital  generally,  for  no  power  on  earth 
can  prevent  the  operation  of  the  law  of  competition  over  a  ter- 
ritory so  extensive  as  the  United  States.  We  have  only  to  be 
prudent,  to  avoid  violent  changes  in  our  fiscal  policy, — for  change, 
or  threatened  change,  is  in  itself  a  serious  impediment  to  business, — 
to  see  that  no  promising  branch  of  industry  is  permitted  to  die  in 
the  struggle  with  the  foreigner,  and  to  fight  it  out  on  the  line  we 
have  hitherto  followed  with  such  success,  even  if  it  should  take 
another  decade  or  more  to  win  the  complete  victory  we  have  in 
view — the  control  of  our  own  home  market.  The  Republic  may 
safely  be  trusted  to  do  this,  and  thus  prove  the  truth  of  one  more 
of  the  many  statements  enunciated  to  the  world  by  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, that  it  is,  indeed,  "a,  world,  and  not  a  very  little  world," 
within  itself. 

Andrew  Carnegie. 


THE    McKINLEY    BILL    IN     EUROPE. 

By    GUSTAVE   DE    MOLINARI. 


THE  McKINLEY  BILL  IN  EUROPE. 


BY    GUSTAVE    DE    MOLINARI,     EDITOR    OF    THE    "JOURNAL   DES 
ECONOMISTES/'   PARIS. 

As  MIGHT  have  been  expected,  the  two  McKinley  bills — that 
increasing  the  custom-house  dues  and  that  imposing  even  higher 
rates  on  various  manufactured  articles — have,  especially  the 
former,  caused  a  lively  commotion  in  the  industrial  and  trading 
world  of  Europe.  In  France  several  chambers  of  commerce,  that 
of  Lyons  in  particular,  have  called  the  attention  of  the  govern- 
ment to  the  Draconian  provisions  of  the  new  tariff,  "  which," 
says  this  chamber,  '^is  in  a  way  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  of 
silk  stuffs." 

In  a  sitting  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  which  took  place  on 
the  2l8t  of  July  last,  the  representative  of  a  manufacturing  dis- 
trict, M.  Charles  Dupuy,  questioned  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  asking  him  whether  the  government  had  entered  into 
negotiations,  either  in  concert  with  the  European  cabinets  or  sep- 
arately, with  the  object  that  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill  should  be 
corrected  by  the  admission  of  the  guarantees  afforded  by  interna- 
tional law.  M.  Charles  Dupuy's  strictures  were  chiefly  levelled 
at  the  provisions  of  the  bill  which,  in  Hgu  of  commissions  wherein 
the  exporters  were  represented,  substituted  a  jury  of  custom- 
house experts  or  functionaries,  and  by  which  fraud  was  presumed 
whenever  the  difference  between  the  value  declared  and  that  esti- 
mated by  the  jury  should  happen  to  exceed  40  per  cent.,  thus 
entailing  a  penalty  that  might  reach  15,000  and  two  years* 
imprisonment.  As  stated  by  M.  Dupuy,  those  provisions  were 
wholly  now.  None  of  a  like  nature  were  to  be  found  in  the  custom- 
house regulations  of  the  most  advanced  of  protectionist  nations. 
In  France,  even  the  law  of  August  21, 1791,  which  is  still  in  force, 


226  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

expressly  says  that  "the  examination  cannot  be  made  except  in 
the  presence  of  the  owners  of  the  goods  or  of  their  mandatories." 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  in  his  reply,  hastened  to 
assure  M.  Dupuy  that  the  affair  had  awakened  his  entire  solici 
tilde,  and  that  he  had  even  applied  to  the  cabinets  of  London, 
Berlin,  and  Kome  to  see  whether  steps  should  not  be  taken  in 
common  and  representations  made  to  the  American  government 
respecting  the  unusual  provisions  of  the  bill  ;  but  that  he  had 
everywhere  found  "  an  extreme  coolness  on  their  part  to  engage 
themselves  in  any  degree  whatever";  it  had  boon  pointed  out  to 
him,  and  he  was  of  a  like  opinion,  that  any  steps  of  the  kind 
would  be  likely  to  produce  in  the  American  Congress  an  effect 
opposed  to  that  which  was  desii-ed  ;  that,  as  regards  the  Tariff 
Bill,  Americans  were  the  judges  of  the  political  course  which 
best  suited  them ;  that  that  course  at  present  tended  towards  pro- 
tection ;  and  that  the  ideal  of  certain  American  statesmen  would 
be  to  organize  a  custom-house  union  with  the  object  of  instituting 
a  sort  of  continental  blockade  against  the  products  of  European 
markets ;  that  the  question  of  retaliatory  measures  had  been 
raised,  whereby  a  grand  Zollverein  directed  against  America 
should  be  established  in  Europe,  but  that  the  project  did  not 
seem  to  him  so  soon  feasible.  While  sharing  on  the  latter  point 
the  opinion  of  the  Minister,  M.  Dupuy  concluded  the  debate  by 
a  threat  of  reprisals.  **  Now,"  said  he,  ''our  custom-house  com- 
mission knows  what  remains  for  it  to  do." 

This  short  parliamentary  incident  gives  a  fairly  correct  idea  of 
the  impression  which  the  ill-timed  McKinley  Tariff  Bill  has  made 
in  Europe.  The  impression  is  a  general  one,  but  it  is  character- 
istic and  curious  to  note  that  the  impression  is  most  acute  in  the 
camp  of  the  Protectionis'ts,  despite  the  fact  that  these  gentlemen 
haVe  always  had  uppermost  in  their  hearts  a  desire  to  introduce 
into  Europe  the  commercial  policy  and  custom-house  schemes  of 
Mr.  McKinley.  What  else  are  we  to  expect  ?  They  do  not 
pride  themselves  on  being  logical.  If  we  lent  an  ear  to  them,  all 
the  states  of  Europe  would  enter  a  league  to  make  sweeping  re- 
prisals, and  interdict  as  far  as  possible  the  markets  of  Europe  to 
all  American  products. 

But  who  will  listen  to  them  ?  And  is  the  McKinley  Bill  likely 
to  exert  any  sort  of  influence  on  the  custom-house  legislation  of 
Jlurope  ?    That  it  exerts  a  moral  influence  over  our  minds,  and 


THE  Mckinley  bill  in  Europe.  227 

contributes  to  cool  the  natural  feelings  of  sympathy  we  entertain 
towards  our  old  American  friends,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for 
sympathy  is  born  of  a  community  of  interests,  and  a  protection- 
ist policy  tends  to  separate  and  isolate  interests,  instead  of  uniting 
them  ;  but  will  it  exert  a  material  influence  ?  In  view  of  the  fast- 
approaching  time  (1892)  when  the  treaties  of  commerce  concluded 
and  renewed  since  1860  between  France  and  most  other  countries 
are  to  lapse,  are  the  clauses  of  the  new  American  bill  likely  to 
determine  a  general  increase  in  custom-house  rates  ?  Or,  at  least, 
is  it  likely,  as  foreshadowed  by  M.  Dupuy,  to  provoke  a  rise  in 
the  rates  levied  on  products  of  American  origin  ? 

To  answer  such  a  question  it  is,  above  all,  necessary  to  examine 
the  present  state  of  opinion  in  Europe  on  the  question  of  protec- 
tion or  commercial  liberty. 

We  shall  teach  the  Americans  nothing  new  when  we  say  that 
that  opinion  has  perceptibly  varied  within  the  last  fifteen  years. 
Under  the  influence  of  the  propaganda  wrought  by  Cobden's 
Anti  Corn-Law  League,  and  the  great  reforms  accomplished  in 
England  by  such  men  as  Eobert  Peel,  Gladstone,  and  their 
emulators,  a  current  of  free-trade  ideas  had  set  in  on  the  Con- 
tinent. In  1860  France  was  prevailed  upon  to  relinquish  her 
old-time  protectionist  regime,  and  to  conclude  a  series  of  com- 
mercial treaties  on  a  relatively  liberal  basis.  But,  it  must  be 
admitted,  this  current  of  free-trade  ideas  had  only  influenced  the 
upper  classes  of  society  ;  the  whole  mass  of  traders  and  working- 
men  remained  Protectionists.  Such  a  reform,  especially  in 
France,  could  never  have  been  accomplished  under  a  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  form  of  government :  it  was  necessary 
that  Napoleon  III,  converted  by  Cobden  and  Michel  Chevalier, 
should  bring  to  bear  his  dictatorial  power  to  impose  it.  Yet  the 
results  of  the  new  commercial  policy  proved  so  favorable  that, 
during  the  first  years  at  least,  its  adversaries  were  reduced  to 
silence.  They  had  predicted  that  French  industry  and  agricult- 
ure would  be  ruined :  these  branches,  on  the  contrary,  made 
extraordinary  progress ;  the  foreign  trade  of  France  rose  from 
$781,400,000  in  1859  to  $1,245,600,000  in  1869;  and  in  other 
countries — Germany,  Italy,  and  Belgium — the  policy  of  com- 
mercial treaties  exerted  an  influence  no  less  favorable. 

Unfortunately,  this  honeymoon  of  continental  free  trade  was 
brutally  interrupted  in  1870  by  the  deep  commotion  which  the 
15 


228  BOTFT  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Franco  Prussian  war  occasioned  in  trade  and  commerce,  and  the 
extra  burden  of  military  and  fiscal  charges  which  it  imposed  on 
the  population.  Even  in  Germany,  where  people  flattered  them- 
selves with  the  notion  that  victory  and  the  war  indemnity  of  a 
thousand  millions  of  dollars  would  impart  a  decisive  impetus  to 
public  prosperity,  the  deception  was  complete.  To  the  years  of 
excitement  and  great  expectations  that  followed  the  war,  a  period 
of  acute  trouble  and  depression  succeeded.  Thereupon  the  pro- 
tectionist ideas  which  had  remained  dormant  in  the  minds  of  the 
multitude  reasserted  themselves  more  strongly  and  more  noisily 
than  ever,  and  they  were  hailed  as  helpful  auxiliaries  by  govern- 
ments the  continued  increase  of  whose  military  expenses  com- 
pelled an  unceasing  augmentation  of  their  receipts.  Bismarck 
was  the  first,  in  1879,  to  give  the  signal  for  the  reaction,  which 
soon  spread  from  Germany  to  Italy,  France,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Continent,  with  the  exception  of  Belgium  and  Holland,  in  which 
countries  commerce  and  exports  kept  the  interests  of  free  trade 
uppermost.  But  the  commercial  treaties  opposed  a  barrier  to  a 
change  of  the  tariffs  in  a  protectionist  sense  :  it  was  necessary  to 
wait  until  those  treaties,  concluded  for*a  period  of  ten  years, 
should  reach  maturity,  in  order  to  increase  the  rates  ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  large  number  of  exporting  traders,  even  among  the 
Protectionists,  were  loath  to  renounce  the  system  of  commercial 
treaties,  on  account  of  the  security  it  gave  to  their  exports. 

This  obstacle  in  part  postponed  the  triumph  of  the  reaction- 
ary party,  but  without  diminishing  its  force.  What,  then,  was 
to  be  done  ?  There  were  a  certain  number  of  articles,  and  among 
others  most  of  the  agricultural  products,  which  were  independent 
of  the  commercial  treaties,  and  on  which,  therefore,  the  dues 
could  be  raised  at  any  time.  It  was  on  this  weak  side  that  the 
Protectionists  attacked  the  liberal  regime,  and  they  found  a  hearty 
support  among  the  agriculturists  and  especially  the  landlords, 
whose  incomes,  after  progressively  increasing  for  half  a  century, 
had  experienced  a  period  of  arrest  and  even  of  decrease,  and  who 
particularly  attributed  this  state  of  things  to  American  compe- 
tition. 

These  fluctuations  in  the  ground  rent  and,  along  with  it,  the 
value  of  the  soil  in  central  and  western  Europe,  constitute  an 
economical  phenomenon  of  considerable  importance.  We  will 
therefore  briefly  examine  the  question.      Thanks  to  the  natural 


THE  McKTNLEY  BILL  IN  EUROPE.  229 

increase  of  the  population,  the  development  of  trade,  and  the 
multiplication  of  railways,  the  mean  value  of  a  hectare*  of  soil, 
which  was  estimated  in  France,  for  instance,  at  1140  in  1815, 
reached  in  1879,  according  to  the  computations  of  the  Adminis- 
tration of  Domains,  $366,  and  the  landed  proprietors  entertained 
the  hope  that  this  progressive  rise  would  continue.  It  came  to  a 
dead  stop,  however ;  and  its  upward  flight  was  arrested  by  the 
influence  of  that  same  progress  which  brought  about  its  rise,  viz., 
the  progress  made  in  establishing  ready  means  of  commu- 
nication. Those  means,  from  the  outset,  not  only  brought  into 
closer  relations  the  markets  of  consumption  with  the  fields  of 
production  inside  the  country,  but  spread  those  relations  beyond 
its  boundaries.  Within  half  a  century  steam  navigation  has  di- 
minished by  more  than  two-thirds  the  ocean  highway,  and  your 
enormous  net-work  of  railways  has  further  contributed  to  break 
through  the  monopoly  of  providing  food  for  your  people,  which 
was  formerly  well-nigh  exclusively  reserved  to  the  landed  proprie- 
tors of  our  agricultural  domain.  Hence  the  arrest  and  even  the 
decrease  in  the  income  derived  from  the  soil  ;  hence  also,  on  the 
part  of  the  landed  proprietors,  a  furious  reaction  against 
the  policy  of  free  trade,  which  was  looked  upon  by  them  as 
responsible  for  the  diminution  of  their  revenues. 

Yet  free  trade  was  not  alone  guilty  ;  it  was  merely  an  acces- 
sory to  steam  navigation  and  the  railways.  But,  unable  as 
they  were  to  suppress  the  chief  authors  of  the  crime  of 
reducing  their  incomes  and  the  value  of  the  soil,  they  laid  the 
blame  on  the  accomplice,  and  the  "  agricultural  party"  called  for 
an  increase  in  the  tariff  rates  sufficient  to  compensate  for  the 
progress  which,  they  alleged,  exposed  European  agriculture  to  a 
complete  submersion  by  reason  of  the  constantly  increasing 
inundation  of  American  meats  and  cereals.  These  mournful 
complaints  have  been  complacently  heard  by  governments  only 
too  eager  to  seize  an  opportunity  for  increasing  their  own  reve- 
nues ;  the  rates  on  alimentary  produce  were  accordingly  raised, 
and  carried  from  25  to  30  per  cent,  in  France,  Germany,  and 
Italy,  And  when  the  custom-house  rates  were  found  in&ufficient 
to  stay  the  threatening  flood  of  incoming  transatlantic  food, 
recourse  was  had  to  hygienic  excuses.     Thus,  because  a  wretched 

'  The  hectare  Is  a  Uttle  over  two  Eng;ll8t)  acres, 


230  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

pig  happened  to  die  of  trichinosis  in  the  little  French  commune 
of  Cr6py-en-Valois,  the  authorities  at  once  rendered  the  whole 
race  of  American  pigs  responsible  for  its  sad  fate,  and  American 
pork  was  prohibited  without  farther  ado,  in  spite  of  the  protests 
raised  by  traders  in  our  seaport  towns,  and  the  complaints  of  the 
consumers. 

Protection  was  thus  easily  set  up  again  over  articles  which 
were  outside  the  pale  of  commercial  treaties.  At  the  same  time  a 
way,  certainly  very  ingenious,  was  discovered  to  get  round  the 
treaty  difficulty  and  even  to  bring  about  an  increase  in  the  tariffs; 
I  allude  to  the  droits  de  combat,  or  "  fighting  rates."  Prince 
Bismarck,  we  believe,  if  not  the  actual  inventor,  was  the  propa- 
gator of  this  novel  scheme,  and  the  example  he  set  before 
Germany  was  promptly  imitated  by  Italy  in  prevision  of  the  re- 
newal of  the  Franco-Italian  treaty  of  commerce.  As  the  process 
is,  no  doubt,  unknown  to  the  American  reader,  we  shall  briefly 
set  forth  its  main  features. 

There  are  two  treaty  tariffs — the  general  tariff,  which  is  ap- 
plied to  the  products  of  nations  with  whom  no  treaty  has  been 
concluded  ;  and  the  conventional  tariff,  which  stipulates  reduc- 
tions more  or  less  high  on  the  general  tariff  rates,  and  which  is 
applied,  by  virtue  of  the  clause  known  as  that  of  the  most  favored 
nation,  to  all  countries  with  whom  treaties  have  been  made. 
Now,  when  it  is  desired  to  renew  a  treaty  of  commerce  in  a  pro- 
tectionist spirit, — viz.,  by  according  the  weakest  possible  reduc- 
tions on  the  rates  of  the  general  tariff  for  imported  articles,  and 
by  seeking  to  obtain  in  exchange  the  highest  possible  reductions 
on  the  rates  payable  for  exported  objects, — what  is  the  course 
adopted  ?  Why,  the  general  tariff  rates  are  simply  raised.  They 
are  carried,  for  instance,  from  25  to  50  per  cent.,  and  you  say  to 
your  adversary  :  "  I  consent  to  renew  the  treaty,  and  I  gene- 
rously grant  you  a  reduction  of  20  per  cent,  on  my  general  tariff, 
subject  to  a  like  concession  on  your  part."  If  your  adversary  lias 
had  recourse  to  the  same  process, — that  is,  if  he  also  has  estab- 
tablished  **'  fighting  rates," — the  two  strategic  manoeuvres  neu- 
tralize each  other,  and  the  result  is  a  renewal  of  the  treaty,  with 
a  mere  increase  of  5  per  cent,  in  the  rates  on  either  side  ;  but  if 
he  neglects  such  a  precaution,  he  risks  a  negotiation  which  takes 
for  its  basis  the  general  tariffs  of  both  nations  and  is  obliged 
to  concede  ^n  effective  reduction   of  20  per  cent.,  while  his 


THE  McKlNLEY  MlL  iN  EUROPE.  $.il 

rival,  who  has  previously  raised  his  general  tariff  by  25 
per  cent.,  and  who  seemingly  grants  a  like  reduction,  in  reality 
raises  his  conventional  tariff  by  5  per  cent.  This  is  what  took 
place  when  the  Franco-Italian  treaty  was  about  to  be  renewed, 
and  it  brought  about  a  rupture  in  the  negotiations.  The  Italians, 
who  are  very  sharp,  had  set  up  "fighting  rates"  which  went  so 
far  as  to  increase  ten  times  the  former  rates,  and  they  wanted 
to  negotiate  on  this  new  basis;  while  the  French,  who  had  neg- 
lected to  take  the  same  precaution,  wished  to  negotiate  on  the 
old  line.  It  was  impossible  to  come  to  an  understanding  ;  the 
treaty  was  not  renewed,  and  a  "  war  of  tariffs  "  ensued,  which,  if 
it  has  not  interrupted,  has  strongly  impaired,  the  commercial  re- 
lations of  the  two  countries. 

These,  then,  are  the  results  of  the  protectionist  reaction  :  on 
the  one  hand,  the  rates  on  food  products  not  included  in  the 
treaties  have  been  raised  by  the  principal  Continental  powers  in 
Germany,  France,  and  Italy  ;  on  the  other  hand,  "  fighting  rates" 
have  been  established,  which  have  raised  the  level  of  general 
tariffs  in  view  of  the  expected  renewal  of  the  treaties  ;  finally,  a 
*'  war  of  tariffs''  has  followed  the  non-renewal  of  the  treaties. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  protectionist  cause  has  to- 
day gained  a  complete  victory  in  Europe,  and  that  to  a  relatively 
liberal  period  of  commercial  policy,  opened  in  1860,  must  succeed 
a  new  period  of  protection,  and  even  prohibition,  during  which 
the  protectionist  majorities  will  impose  on  existing  governments 
the  obligation  of  favoring  national  agriculture  and  industry  in 
view  of  supplying  our  home  markets,  and  consequently  of  ex- 
cluding as  far  as  possible  the  agricultural  produce  of  America, 
together  with  the  industrial  products  of  England.  These  fore- 
casts, however,  which  appeared  pretty  safe  even  two  or  three 
years  ago,  now  begin  to  seem  less  certain  of  fulfilment.  Dark 
spots  at  present  dot  the  sky  of  protection  and  threaten  to  cloud  it 
over ; — in  Germany  the  increasing  misery  of  the  population, 
brought  about  by  the  advance  in  price  of  provisions  and  the 
diminution  of  external  trade ;  and  in  Italy  the  results  of  the  dis- 
astrous war  of  tariffs  engaged  in  with  France.  To  lend  additional 
weight  to  the  argument  and  further  darken  the  picture,  we  have 
before  our  eyes  the  extraordinary  development  of  England's  trade, 
and  the  increase  in  the  well-being  of  her  people  under  the  banner 
of  free  trade.  ■        -^ — 


g32  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTIO!^. 

These  are  not  purely  theoretical  speculations,  but  hard  facts 
daily  attested  by  more  and  more  decisive  proofs.  German  exports 
are  decreasing  :  from  3,269,000  marks  in  1883  they  have  fallen  to 
3,205,000  in  1888  and  3,166,000  in  1889  ;  the  rates  on  cereals 
have  well-nigh  destroyed  the  trade  of  Konigsberg,  Dantzig,  and 
Stettin.  In  the  face  of  the  calamitous  results  arising  from  Prince 
Bismarck's  protectionist  policy,  the  principal  chambers  of  com- 
merce earnestly  entreat  the  government  to  return  to  a  more  lib- 
eral regime.  "  The  doctrine  that  the  foreigner  has  to  support  the 
rates,"  says  the  Konigsberg  chamber,  "  is  now  altogether  an  ex- 
ploded theory.  An  experience  of  ten  years  proves  the  contrary." 
The  chamber  of  Frankfort  says  :  "  We  have  reached  the  culmi- 
nating point  of  a  period  which  has  created  numerous  exaggera- 
tions. May  the  governments  and  the  peoples  soon  recognize  that 
it  is  time  to  turn  from  the  road  of  reciprocal  isolation."  "By 
persisting  in  our  autonomous  custom-house  policy,''  says  the 
chamber  of  Mayence,  "  we  are  provoking  reprisals  and  closing  the 
outlets  of  our  industry.  Existing  treaties  of  commerce  should  be 
retained  and  extended,  and  a  careful  watch  kept  that  the  custom- 
house war  in  Europe  does  not  assume  fresh  proportions." 

Exports  in  Italy  have  fallen  from  a  mean  annual  total 
of  1,053  millions  of  lire  from  1883  to  1886  to  ^50  millions 
in  1889,  and  the  continuous  outpour  oi  migration, 
which  rose  from  167,829  individuals  in  1886  to  290,750 
in  1888,  attests  the  continual  increase  of  misery  among  the 
people.  M.  Vilfredo  Pareto,  the  author  of  a  remarkable  work  on 
the  economic  crisis  in  Italy,  published  in  the  Journal  des  Econo- 
mistes  (May,  1889,  and  June,  1890),  says  :  "  There  are  localities 
in  Venetia  and  the  Neapolitan  provinces  where  the  exodus  is 
complete.  Entire  villages  have  ^ost  their  population.  The 
answer  of  the  prefects,  when  questioned  by  the  government,  is 
unanimous  :  it  is  misery  that  compels  these  unfortunates  to 
leave  their  country."  Doubtless  the  system  of  protection  cannot 
be  held  alone  responsible  for  such  a  situation;  the  increase  in  the 
burden  of  military  expenses  and  the  general  increase  of  public 
taxation  have  contributed  their  share;  but  the  aggravation  of 
hardships  borne  by  the  people  incident  to  protective  rates,  and 
latterly  to  the  war  of  tariffs  with  France,  is  shown  by  incontro- 
vertible facts.  Cast  your  eyes  then  on  the  brilliant  picture 
offered  by  the  prosperity  of  free-trading  England,  as  sketched  by 


THE  McSJNLEV  BILL  JN  EUROPE.  233 

Mr.  Medley  at  the  last  Cobden  Club  meeting,  and  you  cannot  fail 
to  admit  that  the  reporter  in  no  wise  exaggerates  when  he  states 
that  it  is  the  real  triumph  of  free  trade.* 

These  opposite  results  of  two  policies,  which  official  statistics 
fully  set  forth,  and  which  gradually  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
people,  begin  to  act  on  public  opinion,  and  although  in  France, 
for  instance,  the  Protectionists  have  in  the  Chambers  a 
crushing  majority,  we  much  doubt  whether  they  care  to  make 
such  an  ill  use  of  their  preponderance  as  they  appeared  ready  to 
make  a  short  time  ago.  For  a  like  reason  we  do  not  think,  in 
respect  of  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill,  however  damaging  it  may  be 
to  French  industry,  and  however  lively  may  have  been  the  protests 
it  gave  rise  to  in  the  chambers  of  commerce  and  the  parliament, 
that  it  will  determine  the  adoption  of  a  policy  of  reprisals  towards 
the  United  States. 

We  consulted  on  the  subject  a  member  of  the  upper  trading 
circles  of  Paris,  who  cares  little  for  theory,  but  who  is  thoroughly 
well  informed  on  questions  relating  to  industrial  pursuits,  and 
especially  in  regard  to  the  commercial  relations  between  Europe 
and  America,  and  this  is  what  he  said  : 

**  Some  speak  of  making  reprisals  in  order  to  oblige  Americans 
to  give  up  their  system  of  protection  now  carried  to  excess,  and 
of  which  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill  is  the  crowning  feature;  but 
to  what  purpose  ?  It  is  a  piece  of  work  for  which  that  system 
will  itself  furnish  the  cure.  If  protection  ends  by  closing  the 
American  market  to  European  products,  will  it  not  by  the  same 
stroke  as  effectually  close  the  European  market  to  American  prod- 
ucts ?  For  it  is  quite  clear  that  people  only  sell  inasmuch  as  they 
are  able  to  buy,  and  that  products  must  be  exchanged  for  products. 

*  We  will  here  reproduce,  in  support  of  what  we  have  said,  a  few  of  the  more 
significant  fluures  in  Mr.  Medley's  report.  From  1888  to  1889  England's  foreign  trade 
rose  from  £^5,520.979  to  £743,230,274;  the  railway  traffic  increased  from  fi61,lll,0(>l  to 
£67,588,000;  the  operations  of  the  London  clearing-house,  from  £6,942,172,000  to  £7,618,- 
766,000;  the  bank  deposits,  from  £580,000,000  to  £610,000,000;  and  the  savings  banks, 
from  £l01,'i7»,l53  to  £107,882,373.  Agriculture  has  largely  benefl-ted  by  this  general  im- 
provement :  the  number  of  acres  brought,  under  cultivation  has  increased  by  106,809; 
the  number  of  horses  by  8,684;  of  oxen  by  4,165:  of  sheep  by  546,058;  of  pigs  by  90,222. 
On  the  other  hand,  emigration  fell  by  185,500  individuals  in  the  first  six  months  of 
1889,  and  by  158,964  in  the  corresponding  period  for  1890;  the  number  of  the  poor 
succored  in  England  and  Wales,  which  was  825,509  on  January  1, 1888,  and  810,132  on 
January  1, 1889,  was  reduced  to  793,465  on  January  1.  1890.  Finally,  the  number  of 
criminals,  which  in  1868-1869  was  set  down  at  58,441,  fell  in  1887-1888  to  43,336,  al- 
though in  that  period  the  population  increased  from  twenty-two  millloas  to 
tweoty-niBe  millions  of  persons. 


234  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  Americans,  you  say,  will  cause  us  great  damage  by  rendering 
their  markets  inaccessible  to  our  products  :  let  theju  do  so;  they 
will  entail  much  greater  damage  on  themselves.  In  order  to 
convince  yourself  of  this  you  have  only  to  compare  the  importance 
of  the  United  States  market  for  Europe  and  that  of  the  European 
market  for  the  United  States.  In  1887-1888,  on  a  total  export 
trade  of  $083,862,000,  the  United  States  furnished  1519,298,000 
of  products,  or  seven-tenths  of  their  exports,  to  the  seven  Euro- 
pean nations  with  which  they  do  the  most  business,  viz.,  England, 
Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Holland,  Spain,  and  Italy.  During 
the  same  year  those  seven  countries  supplied  the  United  States, 
on  a  total  export  trade  of  12.723,000,000,  with  only  1^264,300,000 
of  products,  or  less  thaa  one-tenth.  Compare  those  figures. 
What  else  do  they  mean  than  this  ? — that,  while  the  closing  of  the 
United  States  market  would  only  make  us  lose  one,  the  closing  of 
the  European  market  would  entail  on  the  Americans  a  loss  of  seven. 
"  I  know  that  some  of  our  industries  would  be  rather  badly 
hurt,  but  not  so  much^  after  all,  as  some  fancy.  Thus,  our 
woollen  industry,  the  total  production  of  which  is  estimated  at 
1160,000,000  and  the  exports  at  180,000,000,  only  supplies 
18,000,000  worth  to  the  United  States,  or  one-twentieth  of  the 
production.  Our  silk  industry,  the  production  of  which  is  set 
down  at  about  the  same  figure,  exported  $3,000,000  worth  more, 
but  the  rigors  of  the  tariff  have  for  several  years  past  gradually 
lowered  the  exports  to  the  United  States  under  this  head,  without 
any  very  perceptible  damage  arising  therefrom.  The  reason  for  this 
is  that,  side  by  side  with  an  outlet  which  protectionism  closes,  there 
are  others  that  free  trade  opens  and  extends.  See,  for  instance, 
what  took  place  in  regard  to  our  wines.  Formerly  the  United 
States  constituted  one  of  our  best  markets.  Forty  years  ago,  in 
1852,  we  sent  them  no  fewer  than  230,000  hectolitres.*  In  1888, 
under  the  influence  of  increased  rates,  our  exports  under  that 
head  fell  to  59,000  hectolitres,  although  the  number  of  likely  ama- 
teurs has  doubled  within  that  space  of  time  in  the  American 
Union.  But  here  is  the  compensation.  Wliilst  the  United  States 
increased  their  tariff,  England  lowered  hers  :  from  five  shillings 
and  sixpence  per  gallon  she  reduced  her  rate  to  one  shilling.  The 
result  was  that  our  wine  exports  to  England  mounted  from  27,000 

*  The  hectolitre  \b  a  little  over  twenty-two  imperial  gallons. 


TBB  McRJNLEY  BILL  IN  EUROPE,  336 

hectoUt'^es  to  270,000,  thus  amply  making  good  the  loss  American 
protectionism  had  entailed. 

"  Are  the  Americans  likely  to  find  similar  compensations  if 
the  European  markets  were  to  close,  or  merely  to  contract,  in 
front  of  them  ?  In  what  consists  nearly  the  whole  of  their  ex- 
ports to  Europe  ?  In  three  articles  :  cotton,  food  products  (meat 
and  cereals),  and  petroleum.  They  have  not,  however,  the  mo- 
nopoly of  these  staples.  We  do,  in  fact,  receive  from  the  United 
States  &Q  per  cent,  of  the  total  quantity  of  cotton  used  in  our 
manufactures,  and  the  failure  of  American  cotton  during  the 
War  of  Secession  brought  about  in  England  and  other  manufact- 
uring countries  a  woful  crisis.  Still,  the  high  price  of  cotton 
encouraged  and  developed  its  production  in  India,  Egypt, 
and  Brazil,  so  that  if  the  war  had  lasted  a  few  years  longer,  the 
deficit  would  have  been  fully  retrieved.  As  regards  petroleum, 
Eussia  is  as  well  supplied  in  this  respect  as  the  United  States, 
and  the  petroleum  from  the  wells  of  Bakou  daily  takes  up  a  larger 
place  on  our  markets.  As  regards  the  food  products,  they  arrive 
from  all  parts  of  the  globe.  Forty-five  different  countries 
vie  with  each  other  in  providing  England  with  cereals,  and  pre- 
served meat  or  live  stock  comes  to  us  even  from  the  antipodes.  I 
do  not  know  whether  American  farmers  are  in  such  a  state  of 
prosperity  as  readily  to  dispense  with  the  markets  of  Europe,  but 
it  is  quite  certain  that  their  produce  would  visibly  be  replaced  by 
Argentine,  Chilian,  and  Australian  imports,  if  the  McKinley 
Tariff  Bill  gave  rise  to  all  the  effects  that  are  expected  from 
it.  Let  us,  I  say,  note  its  action.  It  will  more  effectually  con- 
tribute to  convert  Americans  to  free  trade  than  the  most  violent 
reprisals  are  likely  to  do." 

We  shall  take  care  not  to  add  theoretical  reflections  to  this 
estimate  of  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill  by  one  who  is  a  thoroughly 
practical  man.  We  would,  however,  seize  the  occasion  which  is 
offered  us  to  compare  incidentally  the  natural  order  which  the 
great  Ordainer  of  things  has  established  with  the  artificial  order 
which  European  and  American  politicians  make  it  their  business 
to  put  in  its  place.  He  has  diversified  the  productions  and  the 
aptitudes  of  production  in  such  a  way  that  men,  if  they  were  will- 
ing to  conform  to  his  beneficent  intentions,  might  readily  procure 
all  the  things  necessary  to  the  satisfaction  of  their  wants,  in 
as  great  an  abundance  as  possible,  and  in  exchange  for  the  least 


236  ISOTH  SIDES  OF"  TBE  TaKIFF  (QUESTION. 

amount  of  labor  and  trouble  :  the  Americans  might  drink  their  fill 
of  our  good  wines,  whilst  our  poor  workmen  would  eat  their  full 
quantum  of  the  meat  that  encumbers  your  shambles,  and  of  the 
maize  that  your  farmers  are  obliged  to  burn  in  order  to  get  rid  of 
it.  But  political  Protectionists  have  interfered,  declaring  that  it 
is  better  to  drink  the  sour  national  beverage  rather  than  good 
foreign  wine,  and  to  go  without  food  rather  than  seek  for  it 
beyond  the  frontier — in  short,  that  each  people  should  be  self- 
supporting  ;  and  while  the  great  Ordainer  of  things  has  dug  the 
beds  of  oceans  and  rivers  that  man  may  more  easily  communicate 
with  man  and  exchange  earth's  products,  they  have  raised  barriers 
that  are  daily  run  up  higher  and  higher  to  thwart  and  prevent 
those  exchanges.  If,  moreover,  the  barriers  were  fixed,  they 
would  establish  a  certain  stability  in  the  scale  of  the  production, 
and,  while  raising  the  cost  of  living,  would  insure  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent the  means  of  existence  of  the  producers. 

But  those  barriers  are  movable  !  Their  level  rises  and  falls 
from  one  day  to  another,  according  to  the  caprice  or  the  interest, 
more  or  less  avowed  and  honest,  of  those  who  build  them  ;  and 
each  time  the  level  changes,  the  conditions  of  existence  of  a 
multitude  of  individuals  are  upset,  without  their  even  being  able 
to  say  whence  comes  the  crisis  to  which  they  fall  the  victims. 
They  are  none  the  less  told  that  the  artificial  system  to  which 
they  owe  these  continual  upheavings  and  troubles  is  instituted  for 
their  "protection."  May  we  not  be  allowed  to  think  that  the 
system  set  down  by  the  great  Ordainer  of  things  would  protect 
them  better  and  at  less  cost  ? 

GUSTAVE  DE  MOLIKABI. 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 
By  Samuel  W.  Mbndum. 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

BY   SAMUEL   \V.    MENDUM. 


Among  the  changes  proposed  jn  the  Senate  Tariff  Bill,  which 
passed  the  Senate  on  January  22,  1889,  was  an  increase  in  the  '"'  "^y 
on  tin  plates  from  one  cent,  the  present  rate,  to  two  cents  per 
pound.  While  the  bill  was  yet  pending,  the  Massachusettc  con- 
sumers and  workers  of  tin  plate,  to  the  number  of  over  three 
hundred,  signed  and  forwarded  to  the  Hon.  Henry  L.  Dawes  and 
the  Hon.  George  F.  Hoar,  the  Senators  from  Massachusetts,  a 
communication  in  which  the  following  specific  questions  were 
asked  : 

1.  Why  double  the  tax  on  tin  plates  t 

2.  Why  not  let  them  enter  free  of  duty  t 

3.  Who  are  to  be  benefited  by  taxing  us  upon  the  tin  plates  we  consume  ? 

4.  To  whom  do  you  expect  the  proposed  increase  of  tax  will  be  paid— to  the 
United  States  Treasury,  or  to  private  persons  to  induce  them  to  undertake  the 
manufacture  of  tin  plates  ? 

5.  If  to  the  latter,  what  chance  do  you  think  any  workmen  now  idle  in  this 
co"ntry  would  stand  in  getting  such  private  persons  to  employ  them,  in  r :  sference  to 
the  especially  well-fitted  Welshmen  who  would  at  once  seek  such  employment  here  f 

It  will  readily  be  admitted  that  these  consumers  and  workers  of 
tin  plate  had  as  good  ground  for  consideration  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  Mr.  James  M.  Swank,  who 
at  the  same  time  directed  a  letter  to  Senator  Allison,  as  chairman 
of  the  Senate  Sub-Committee  on  Tariff  Revision,  in  which  he  ad- 
vocated strongly  the  increase  of  the  duty  on  tin  plate,  and  even 
admitted  that  the  price  of  tin  plates  would  be  increased  to  con- 
sumers as  a  result  of  raising  the  duty.  Nevertheless,  so  far  as  we 
are  informed,  our  two  Senators  paid  noattention  whatever  to  these 
questions,  and  the  attempt  of  the  Massachusetts  tin-plate  workers 
and  consumers  to  obtain  the  justification  for  a  change  so  vitally 
concerning  their  interests  was  ineffectual. 

The  idea,  however,  of  asking  specific  questions  with  regard  to 
the  effects  of  our  present  tariff  upon  special  branches  of  industry 


240  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

appeared  to  find  faror  with  some  of  our  young  men  wlio  have 
become  interested  in  economic  questions.  Since  the  tariff  had 
come  to  be  the  most  important  issue  in  our  national  politics,  it 
was  assumed  that  there  must  be  a  large  number  of  people  who 
would  like  to  have  more  definite  knowledge  upon  the  subject. 
The  time  was  especially  opportune  for  educational  work.  A 
presidential  contest  had  just  been  decided  and  politics  were  quiet. 
Honest  arguments  would  not  be  restrained  by  anxiety  for  party 
welfare.  By  the  method  of  question  and  answer,  or  question 
and  refusal  to  answer,  or  question  and  neglect  to  answer,  it  was 
thought  that  the  whole  subject  of  taxation  might  be  overhauled. 
Questions  should  be  sent  to  those  representing  both  sides,  and 
answers  from  Protectionists  or  Tariff-reformers  should  be  equally 
welcome. 

As  these  young  men  had  no  special  interests  at  stake  and, 
therefore,  could  not  afford  to  invest  large  sums  of  money  with  the 
hope  of  a  return,  a  cheap  method  of  spreading  their  information 
was  desired.  "  Why  not  make  the  people  the  questioners  ?  "  The 
idea  developed,  and  soon  clubs,  consisting  of  five  or  more 
members  each,  were  organized  in  various  towns  and  cities  of  the 
State.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  circulation  of  the  questions  and 
the  publication  of  the  answers  in  the  press,  a  general  secretary 
was  elected,  and  the  consolidated  organizations  became  known  as 
the  United  Question  Clubs  of  Massachusetts,  with  a  post-office 
box  as  their  expensive  headquarters. 

The  first  set  of  questions  received  treated  of  the  duties  upon 
fish,  potatoes,  coal,  iron  ore,  and  iron.  There  were  seven  separate 
questions,  but,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  will  make  a  "  com- 
posite" question  of  the  whole  :  "  Do  you  think  salt  fish,  smoked 
herring,  frozen  fish,  potatoes,  coal,  iron  ore,  limestone,  and  iron 
ought  to  be  taxed  ?"  These  questions,  addressed  to  Senatora 
Dawes  and  Hoar,  and  Representatives  Andrew  and  Candler,  of 
the  Third  and  Ninth  Districts  respectively,  were  forwarded  to  the 
various  clubs  for  the  signatures  of  the  members.  Twenty-three 
clubs  responded,  and  the  questions,  duly  signed,  were  forwarded 
by  the  general  secretary  to  the  congressmen  to  whom  they  were 
addressed. 

Representative  Andrew  alone  made  specific  replies  to  these 
questions.  He  expressed  himself  as  opposed  to  the  imposition  of 
duties  upon  the  articles  named,  and  stated  his  reasons  at  length. 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  ASD  THE  TARIFF.  241 

A  part  of  his  answer  to  the  questions  on  coal  and  iron  Is  here- 
with given  : 

"  In  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia  are  to  be  found  deposit3  of  iron  ore  of  high 
quality,  of  cokeing  coal  in  great  abundance  of  the  best  kind,  and  of  chemically-pure 
limestone,  all  lying  within  a  range  of  six  miles  from  the  sea,  to  the  shore  of  which 
they  might  be  brought  and  converted  into  iron  for  our  use;  or  they  could  be  floated 
on  barges  into  the  harbors  of  Bath,  Portland,  Portsmouth,  and  Boston.  We  could 
then  be  supplied  ^vith  pig-iron  at  from  ^  to  $11  a  ton,  coal  at  93  a  ton,  and  coke  at 
$3.50  a  ton.  ...  If  we  send  to  Pennsylvania,  we  must  pay  from  $16  to  $18  a  ton 
for  pig-iron,  $4  a  ton  for  coal,  and  from  $5  to  $6.50  a  ton  for  coke.  .  .  .  Our  iron- 
works in  New  England,  which  gave  employment  to  thousands  of  our  people,  are 
being  closed,  winding  up,  selling  out,  or  going  to  ruin,  on  account  of  both  the  lack  of 
the  crude  materials  and  of  the  old  scrap  iron  and  steel  and  other  waste  materials, 
which  we  could  derive  in  vast  quantities  from  Cuba  and  South  America  and  other 
points,  in  exchange  for  finished  products,  but  from  which  privilege  we  are  prohibited 
by  taxation." 

The  publication  of  Mr.  Andrew's  replies  in  the  name  of  the 
United  Question  Clubs  brought  forth  a  storm  of  ridicule  from 
protectionist  papers,  which  devoted  so  much  of  their  valuable 
space  to  denouncing  us  and  our  methods  as  to  cause  us  to  feel 
that  we  were,  after  all,  of  some  importance,  and  that  our  shots 
were  taking  effect.  The  Boston  Journal  thought  it  necessary  to 
warn  Republicans  to  ignore  the  Question  Clubs,  and  declared  that 
the  shortest  way  to  extinguish  them  was  "not  to  notice  them." 
The  Journal  itself  could  not  practise  its  precepts.  The  Boston 
Advertiser  aristocratically  insinuated  that  the  questions,  signed 
as  they  were  largely  by  workingmen,  would  not  warrant  replies  of 
value  from  public  men.  Several  columns  would  not  exhaust  the 
ridicule  which  was  hurled  at  the  Question  Chibs.  This  ridicule 
only  served  to  help  us  by  arousing  the  curiosity  of  the  people,  and 
the  advertising  cost  us  nothing. 

Representative  Candler  did  not  answer  our  questions.  The 
fact  that  he  was  a  Republican  Congressman  probably  deterred 
him  from  an  honest  expression  of  his  views.  He  did  not  even 
inform  us  that  he  had  changed  his  faith  from  that  to  which  he 
adhered  in  1869,  when  he  said,  at  a  great  meeting  held  in  Chick- 
ering  Hall  to  promote  the  reduction  of  taxation  and  the  reform 
of  the  tariff  : 

"All  of  them  [food,  coal,  lumber,  and  iron)  are  in  a  measure  cut  off  from  ua  by 
the  greatest  humbug  of  modem  times,  the  tariff  of  the  United  States." 

The  Boston  Advertiser  declared  that  it  was  "  insulting  to  our 
Congressmen  to  ask  them  questions  about  the  tariff."  What  fol- 
lows shows   how  Senator  Dawes   was   insulted  by  our  questions. 


242  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

While  he  did  not  favor  us  with  categorical  replies,  still  we  were 
very  glad  to  receive  from  him  a  letter  conveying  such  evidence 
of  the  kindly  spirit  in  which  he  received  our  questions  that  we 
felt  sure,  on  what  we  considered  very  good  grounds,  that  our 
movement  was  not  so  contemptible  as  the  protectionist  papers 
would  have  the  public  believe.  Referring  to  the  repetition  of  the 
questions  on  the  different  signed  blanks  representing  the  various 
clubs,  he  says: 

"  There  was  no  occasion  for  this  formidable  method  of  approach,  for  any  one  of  my 
constituents,  as  well  as  the  gentlemen  who  have  signed  these  papers,  is  entitled  to 
my  opinion  on  all  subjects  of  public  concern.  .  .  .  These  gentlemen  inform  me 
that  they  shall  put  questions  to  me  from  time  to  time.  This  is  commendable,  and 
they  are  entitled  to  a  respectful  answer,  which  they  shall  have  at  all  times  from 
me." 

In  order  that  the  replies  of  Mr.  Andrew  might  be  tested,  they 
were  forwarded  to  the  prominent  iron-manufacturers  of  New 
England,  with  a  request  for  an  expression  of  opinion.  The  result 
was  eminently  satisfactory.  Replies  were  received  from  the  Hon. 
Peleg  McFarlin,  treasurer  of  the  Ellis  Foundry,  South  Carver, 
Mass.,  who  has  so  persistently  endeavored  to  show  the  Republicans 
of  New  England  that  the  high  tariff  on  iron,  crude,  scrap,  and 
pig,  is  ruining  our  iron  industries  ;  Mr.  A.  N.  Parlin,  treasurer  of 
the  Magee  Furnace  Company,  Boston ;  Mr.  James  C.  Warr,  of 
the  Franconia  Iron  and  Steel  Works,  "Wareham,  Mass,  ;  Mr.  Z. 
Talbot,  manufacturer  of  shoe-nails  and  tacks,  Holliston,  Mass.  ; 
Mr.  W.  B.  Dart,  treasurer  of  the  Rhode  Island  Tool  Company, 
Providence  ;  Mr.  Lewis  S.  Judd,  proprietor  of  the  Fairhaven 
(Mass.)  Iron- Works,  and  General  John  H.  Reed,  treasurer  of  the 
Bay  State  Iron- Works. 

All  of  these  gentlemen  indorsed  the  views  of  Mr.  Andrew 
wholly  or  in  part,  and  the  publication  of  their  replies  in  the 
leading  papers  of  New  England  attracted  wide  attention  and 
occasioned  much  discussion.  It  ought  to  be  noticed  that  the 
above-named  gentlemen  are  not  "  visionary  doctrinaires, *'  nor 
receivers  of  British  gold,  nor,  as  far  as  we  are  informed,  members 
of  the  Cobden  Club ;  but  that  they  are  practical  business  men. 
I  herewith  quote  from  the  various  letters.  The  Hon.  Peleg 
McFarlin  says : 

"  It  is  sometimes  but  a  step  from  the  condition  which  threatens  disaster  to  that 
which  insures  success.  Restore  the  former  reasonable  tariff  rate  of  24  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  iron,  and,  while  Pennsylvania  will  not  suffer,  New  England  will  fetl  a 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  248 

E'imnlas  in  all  her  avennea  of  traffic.  Scores  of  mills  within  her  borders,  now  de- 
serted and  silent,  will  throng  with  workmen  and  renew  the  hum  of  thrifty  indaa- 
try." 

Mr.  James  C.  Warr  speaks  in  no  unmeaning  terms  when  he 

says  : 

"  As  one  who  has  been  an  unchanging  member  of  the  Republican  party  from  the 
time  of  its  organization,  I  enter  my  protest  against  the  doctrine  tidvocated  by  some 
stump  speakers,  more  zealous  than  wise,  during  the  late  campaign,  that  New  Eng- 
land, having  within  the  reach  of  her  hands  iron  as  cheap  as  any  that  can  be  pro- 
duced in  the  United  States,  and  coal  as  cheap  as  any  that  can  be  laid  down  in  any 
city  east  of  the  All^hanies.  shall  sacrifice  her  rolling-mills,  foundries,  machine- 
shops,  nail,  tack  and  shovel  factories,  boiler,  engine,  and  locomotive  works,  and  her 
other  iron-working  establishments  of  a  hundred  kinds,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  whims 
and  fancies  of  some  few  extremists  in  New  England,  who,  influenced  by  cunning 
Pennsylvania  sophistries,  are  endeavoring  to  commit  the  Republican  party  to  the 
advocacy  of  the  suicidal  theory  that  protection  to  American  manufactures  should 
be  carried  so  far  as  to  work  the  prohibition  of  raw  materials  to  those  States  which 
are  so  imfortunate  as  not  to  produce  any.  If  the  mission  of  the  Republican  party  is 
to  pull  down  one  by  one  the  great  industries  of  New  England,  then  I  have  thorough- 
ly misunderstood.  *t,  and  have  all  these  years  been  voting  with  the  wrong  party." 

As  a  result  of  the  discussion  of  the  iron  question,  the  Boston 
Journal  felt  obliged  to  break  its  rule  to  ''quietly  ignore"  the 
Question  Clubs,  and  some  refutation  of  Mr.  McFarlin's  views  was 
attempted.     This  paper  held  that 

"the  migrations  of  the  iron  industry  have  been  occasioned  primarily  by  considera- 
tions of  convenience  and  transportation,  and  proximity  to  the  desired  kinds  of  ore 
and  coaL  These  are  matters  with  which  the  duty  on  pig-iron  has  little  or  nothing 
to  do."  * 

In  other  words,  the  Boston  Journal  says  in  effect  to  our  iron- 
manufacturers  :  "  You  can't  do  it,  and  we  won't  let  you  try."  It 
must  be  a  blind  adherence  to  the  party  whip  which  causes  this 
organ  to  oppose  the  efforts  of  our  iron  men  to  revive  their 
industries  by  a  reduction  of  the  exorbitant  duties  upon  iron.  If 
the  duty  on  pig-iron  "  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  "  with  the  state 
of  our  iron  industry,  why  not  remove  it,  or  even  reduce  it  ?  If 
that  were  done,  and  then  iron-manufacturing  should  prove  a 
failure,  our  iron  men  would  have  to  accept  the  result,  just  as  the 
New  England  wheat-growers  did  when  the  wheat  centre  moved 
west.  Again,  the  Journal  takes  a  still  weaker  position  when  it 
says  that,  after  all, 

"  competition,  not  merely  among  mine-owners,  hut  to  even  a  greater  ertent  be- 
tween freight  routes,  has  brought  prices  down  to  a  point  at  which  Canadian  coal,  of 
a  quality  suited  to  the  purpose  for  whicFi  iron-manofactorera  desire  it,  caanot  buq- 
cessfully  compete."! 

•  August  1, 1889.      t  September  18, 1888, 
Id 


244  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

If  the  duty  on  coal  is  inoperative,  why  not  remove  it  ?  If 
Canadian  coal  cannot  compete,  what  need  is  there  of  keeping  a 
useless  duty  upon  the  tariff-books  ?  Let  us  try  free  coal,  and  if 
Pennsylvania  can  do  better  for  New  England  than  Canada,  well 
and  good. 

And  even  weaker  is  the  position  of  Mr.  James  M.  Swank,  secre- 
tary of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  who  is  particularly  excited 
over  the  efforts  of  the  New  England  iron  men  to  obtain  free  iron 
ore  and  coal.  In  a  recent  Bulletin  article  he  made  the  following 
statement : 

"  The  government  does  not  attempt  to  force  the  cultivation  of  cotton  in  Ohio  or 
sugar-cane  in  Michigan.  Why  should  it  be  asked  to  attempt  equally  Impossible 
results  in  connection  with  the  iron  kidustry  of  New  England  ?  " 

Overlooking  the  mistake  in  Mr.  Swank's  premises, — for  the 
government  does,  by  high  duties,  force  the  production  of 
sugar  in  Louisiana,  an  industry  which,  on  the  testimony  of  the 
sugar-planters  themselves,  could  not  exist  but  for  the  protective 
duty, — it  is  easy  to  prove  him  wilfully  inconsistent.  He  fails  to 
understand  that  the  New  England  iron  men  ask  for  no  govern- 
ment intervention  in  their  behalf ;  but,  rather,  for  a  removal  of 
the  goyernment  prevetition,  consisting  of  exorbitant  duties  upon 
their  raw  materials.  They  want  a  fair  chance,  and  Mr.  Swank 
is  not  willing  that  they  should  have  it,  despite  the  statements  of 
Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  McFarlin  in  the  Journal 
of  August  10,  1889  : 

"  So  far  as  foreign  competiton  in  pig-iron  is  concerned,  if  we  have  no  tax  upon  that 
article,  it  would  be  confined  to  the  seaboard  districts  of  this  country,  where  cheap 
transportation  by  water  could  be  obtained  from  the  centres  of  production  in  Europe. 
In  the  interior  of  this  country  iron  is  already  manufactured  at  so  low  a  price  that 
foreign  producers  could  not  aflford  to  send  their  product  across  the  Atlantic  and 
pay,  in  addition,  large  rates  of  freight  for  transportation  by  rail  in  order  to  compete 
in  the  interior  with  American  producers." 

We  also  have  the  testimony  of  another  prominent  Pennsyl- 
vanian  to  the  effect  that  a  vigorous  reform  of  our  iron  tariffs  will 
not  hurt  Pennsylvania,  for  which  State  the  Boston  Journal  is  so 
solicitous.  The  Philadelphia  Record,  of  November  26,  1889, 
quotes  the  following  from  Major  L.  S.  Bent,  president  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Steel  Company,  of  Steelton,  Pa.,  the  greatest  in- 
dustrial plant  in  the  State: 

"  Give  me  free  ore  and  I'll  sell  pig-iron  in  Liverpool  and  send  steel  rails  to  Lon- 
don. What  American  industries  most  want  is  free  opportunity  and  not  legislative 
protection  nor  restrictiun." 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  245 

Again,  Mr.  Swank  is  a  zealous  advocate  of  doubling  the  tax 
on  tin  plates  in  order  that  the  tin-plate  industry  may  be  "forced" 
in  Pennsylvania.  And  in  his  letter  to  Senator  Allison's  commit- 
tee he  emphasizes  the  point  that  block  tin  is  free  of  duty,  so  that 
American-to-be  tin-plate-manufacturers  could  get  their  raw 
material  (block  tin)  on  as  advantageous  terms  as  England. 
Here  is  the  spectacle  of  a  Pennsylvania  magnate,  willing  that 
by  a  heavy  duty  the  price  of  tin  plates  should  be  somewhat  higher 
to  our  consumers,  accepting  joyfully  the  fact  that  block  tin  is 
free  of  duty,  and  selfishly  denying  the  right  to  an  equal  enjoy- 
ment of  free  raw  material  to  his  fellow-citizens  in  New  England ! 

Space  does  not  permit  me  to  treat  in  detail  the  questions  and 
answers  upon  other  commodities.  The  '^  wool  questions '*  were 
answered  in  detail  by  the  Hon.  John  E.  Russell  and  the  Hon. 
William  E.  Russell,  but  were  ignored  by  the  Hon.  John  D.  Long 
and  Representative  Rodney  Wallace,  of  the  Eleventh  District. 
The  Messrs.  Russell  argued  strongly  in  favor  of  free  wool,  and  ex- 
pressed themselves  as  firmly  convinced  that  the  present  duties 
were  a  burden  rather  than  a  benefit  to  the  farmer  and  the  wool- 
grower.  In  response  to  a  request  for  his  opinion  on  these  answers, 
Mr.  Robert  Bleakie,  the  well-known  woollen-manufacturer  of  Hyde 
Park,  replied,  fully  concurring  in  the  views  of  these  gentlemen.  As 
a  further  indorsement  of  the  opinions  of  the  Messrs.  Russell,  we  re- 
fer to  the  petition  for  free  wool  prepared  by  the  American  WooJ 
Reporter  and  presented  to  Congress,  which,  up  to  December  12,  had 
received  the  signatures  of  517  wool-manufacturers  and  merchants. 

The  Question  Clubs  now  numbered  fifty,  and  that  number  was 
increased  early  in  August  by  the  twenty-five  new  clubs  whose 
members  signed  the  lumber  questions.  Again,  the  Republican 
congressmen  neglected  to  reply.  Mr.  Arthur  T.  Lyman,  treas- 
urer of  the  Lowell  Manufacturing  Company,  made  in  reply  a 
strong  appeal  for  the  removal  of  the  duties  on  lumber.  Acting  on 
the  advice  of  General  William  F.  Draper,  of  Hopedale,  Mass.,  to 
send  our  questions  to  "  producers  of  lumber,"  we  received  some 
very  able  replies.  Mr.  George  F.  Talbot,  of  Portland,  Maine,  for 
thirty  years  a  timber-land-owner,  bore  excellent  testimony  to  the 
prosperous  condition  of  the  lu'^ber  business  under  the  reciprocity 
treaty  with  Canada.     He  concluded  as  follows  : 

"  The  duty  on  lumber  ag^gravates  the  relative  cost  of  lumber  to  the  consumer;  it  is 
utterly  useless  as  a  protection;  it  deposits  a  mischievous  surplus  In  the  Treasury, 
ftQd  it  ought  to  be  abolished." 


246  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  questions  on  shipping  received  the  signatures  of  221  of 
Boston's  prominent  merchants.  The  publication  of  the  questions 
together  with  the  names  of  the  signers  occasioned  much  dis- 
cussion. The  chief  effect  of  these  questions  was  to  revive  the 
question  of  subsidies.  Through  the  influence  of  protectionist 
journals,  which  have  persistently  maintained  that  England  applies 
the  doctrine  of  protection  in  a  very  high  degree  to  her  shipping, 
and  have  wilfully  neglected  to  state  that  England  does  not  pay 
out  money  to  her  ships  except  in  return  for  service  rendered, 
many  of  our  people  still  believe  that  England  pays  direct  boun- 
ties. The  number  of  people  holding  that  belief  is,  thanks  to  the 
agitation  of  the  subject,  constantly  growing  less.  The  reply  of 
the  Hon.  David  A.  Wells  is  exhaustive  and  effective.  In  con- 
cluding his  treatment  of  the  subsidy  question,  he  says  : 

"  England  subsidizes  ships  in  the  same  sense  as  the  citizen  subsidizes  the  butcher, 
the  baker,  the  grocer,  and  the  dry-goods  merchant ;  that  is,  she  avails  herself  of  the 
services  of  a  very  Email  proportion  of  her  ships  and  shii)-owners  for  carrying  her 
mails,  and  pays  them  for  it  in  exactly  the  same  way  as  the  United  States  pays 
railroad-,  steamboat-,  and  stage-owners  for  performing  similar  service.  And  in  all 
her  history  Great  Britain  has  never  appropriated  a  dollar  for  the  purpose  of  aiding 
in  the  construction  and  employment  of  a  British  merchant  ship,  and  no  person  can 
point  to  a  single  act  of  Parliament  that  ever  gave  a  bounty  or  subsidy  for  such  pur- 
pose." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  interest  that  has  been  awakened 
and  the  instruction  that  has  been  imparted  with  reference  to  the 
tariff  by  the  United  Question  Clubs.  The  Republicans,  realizing 
the  growth  of  the  tariff-reform  sentiment  in  the  State,  deemed 
it  expedient  to  so  far  modify  the  uncompromisingly  protective 
attitude  of  the  Chicago  platform  of  1888  as  to  insert  in  their 
declaration  of  principles  for  the  State  campaign  the  following 
clause : 

"To  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  we  would  say  that  the 
Republicans  of  Massachusetts  look  to  them  to  urge  and  support  a  thorough  and 
equitable  revision  of  the  tariff,  so  as  to  adapt  the  protection  which  it  affords  to 
changed  business  conditions  affecting  New  England  industries  in  common  with 
thoseof  the  rest  of  the  country";  [and  then  by  way  of  hedging]  "  to  maintain  the 
American  system  of  protection  to  American  industry  and  American  labor  with 
which  the  party  marched  to  victory  at  the  last  election." 

The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  boldly  announced  them- 
selves in  favor  of  a  vigorous  reform  of  the  tariff,  and  made  the 
question  the  leading  issue  in  the  campaign,  while  tire  Eepublioans 
avoided  the  discussion  as  too  dangerous  to  enter  upon.  In  the 
Democratic  platform  appear  the  following  statements: 

••  We  give  our  hearty  support  to  the  petition  of  the  present  Republican  Governor 
0{  (b9  State  (Ames],  and  other  leading  iron-  and  steel-manufacturers  ol  both  fohtr 


THE  QUESTION  CLUBS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  247 

leal  parties,  asking  for  free  coal  and  iron  ore  and  lower  duties  upon  pig-iron.  .  .  . 
We  demand  that  all  materials  for  ship-building,  whether  of  metal  or  wood,  be  re- 
lieved from  the  heavy  taxation  now  imposed  upon  them,  and  made  free  of  duty." 

A  challenge  was  issued  by  the  Democrats  to  the  Kepublicans 
for  a  debate  upon  the  tariff  with  the  candidates  for  Governer,  the 
Hon.  W.  E.  Russell  and  the  Hon.  J.  Q.  A.  Brackett,  as  the  dis- 
putants. The  Republicans  refused  to  accept  the  challenge, 
which,  it  must  be  confessed,  was  the  wisest  course  for  them  to 
adopt.  The  result  of  the  election  was  a  surprise  to  even  the  most 
sanguine  of  the  Democrats,  for  Mr.  Brackett  was  elected  by  the 
small  plurality  of  about  6,000  votes. 

The  work  of  the  Question  Clubs  is  really  but  begun.  We  have 
been  collecting  a  library  of  facts  and  opinions,  and  we  purpose, 
when  sufficient  matter  is  collected,  to  republish  our  questions  and 
answers  in  pamphlet  form  for  distribution. 

In  order  that  I  might  emphasize  our  gratitude,  I  have  deferred 
until  this  place  mention  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  Question  Clubs 
to  the  invaluable  assistance  of  the  press  of  Boston  and  New  Eng- 
land, and  also  of  New  York.  The  daily  papers  have  been  the 
si7ie  qud  non  of  our  success,  and  I  thank  them  heartily  for  their 
willingness  to  publish  our  numerous  replies.  With  the  slight  ex- 
pense of  a  little  printing  and  postage  and  the  gratuitous  publica- 
tion of  our  matter  in  the  columns  of  the  press,  it  is  doubtful  if  a 
cheaper  and  more  effectual  method  of  economic  education  has 
ever  been  devised. 

Samuel  W.  Mekdum. 


(ill 


FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE. 
By  the   Hon.    Roger  Q.    Mills. 


FREE  TRABE  AGAINST  SLAYE  TRADE. 


During  the  present  year  several  articles  have  appeared  in  the 
North  American  Review  written  by  different  persons  advocat- 
ing and  opposing  the  policy  of  commercial  restriction.  In  the  July 
number  Mr.  Carnegie  contributed  one  advocating  commercial 
strangulation.  He  boldly  assails  the  position  taken  by  me  in  a 
former  number,  that  "there  can  be  no  surer  test  of  the  prosperity 
of  a  country  than  the  increase  of  its  foreign  trade,  and  no  surer 
test  of  the  retardation  of  that  prosperity  than  the  decrease  of  that 
trade."  He  assumes,  on  the  contrary,  that  "the  true  test  of  the 
prosperity  of  this  country  is  to  be  found  in  the  increase  of  its  do- 
mestic commerce  and  the  relative  decline  of  its  foreign  commerce." 

In  his  argument  he  says  that  "all  exchange  is  a  matter  of 
profit  between  the  two  parties  thereto  "  ;  that  when  the  exchange 
takes  place  between  a  citizen  of  Texas  and  one  of  New  England 
both  are  benefited,  and  when  it  takes  place  between  a  citizen  of 
Texas  and  a  subject  of  Great ,  Britain  both  are  alike  benefited. 
So  far  we  are  in  perfect  accord.  Doubtless  he  will  agree  with  me 
that  the  converse  of  his  proposition  is  equally  true — that  if  the 
exchange  does  not  take  place  between  the  citizen  of  Texas  and 
the  citizen  of  New  England  or  of  Great  Britain  that  neither 
makes  profit,  and  the  profit  that  would  be  made  by  the  exchange 
is  lost  to  both  by  the  failure  to  make  it.  If  one  proposition  is 
true  the  other  is,  and  both  are.  So  that  it  follows  "  as  the  night 
the  day"  that  profit  is  made  by  exchange,  and  the  greater  the  ex- 
change the  greater  the  profit.  If  every  laborer  in  the  United 
States  was  forbidden  by  law  to  exchange  with  any  one  there  could 
be  no  profit,  and  no  accumulation  of  wealth.  Each  would  con- 
sume of  his  own  products  what  his  own  wants  required  and  waste 
the  balance,  and  the  wants  that  could  only  be  satisfied  by  the  la- 
bor of  others  would  go  unsatisfied.  Such  a  law  would  en- 
force a  remorseless  slavery.  If  the  law  should  be  so  mod- 
ified   as  to    permit    tlio   enslaved    laborers   to    exchange    with 


262  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

each  other  in  the  same  State,  it  would  ameliorate  their  con- 
dition and  give  some  value  to  their  products,  enable  them 
to  satisfy  more  wants,  and  lift  them  a  step  higher  on  the 
ladder  toward  prosperity.  If  the  law  should  be  again  modified  so 
as  to  permit  the  enslaved  laborers  to  exchange  with  each  other  in 
all  the  states  it  would  add  increased  value  to  their  products, 
enable  them  to  satisfy  still  more  wants,  and  supply  them- 
selves with  still  more  comforts.  Now,  if  these  modifications 
would  be  beneficial  a  still  further  modification  would  be  still  more 
beneficial.  And  if  the  laws  of  all  nations  were  so  changed  as  to 
permit  all  laborers  in  every  part  of  the  globe  to  exchange  with 
each  other  it  would  add  the  highest  possible  value  to  the  products 
of  each  ;  it  would  enable  each  to  satisfy  the  greatest  possible  num- 
ber of  wants  and  surround  himself  with  the  greatest  possible 
amount  of  comforts,  and  all  countries  would  rise  and  touch  the 
highest  possible  point  of  prosperity.  Either  this  position  is  true 
or  the  opposite  is  true  :  that  each  country  will  attain  its  highest 
prosperity  when  exchange  with  another  is  interdicted  and  each 
laborer  will  attain  his  highest  prosperity  when  exchange  with  his 
fellow  is  interdicted.  By  this  policy  each  country  will  be  en- 
couraged to  produce  all  that  its  wants  require,  and  each  person 
will  be  encouraged  to  produce  all  that  his  wants  require,  and  each 
country  will  be  independent  of  all  other  countries  and  each  per- 
son will  be  independent  of  all  other  persons. 

Mr.  Carnegie  does  not  demand  that  the  policy  shall  be  carried 
further  than  prohibition  between  this  and  other  countries,  but 
if  his  policy  is  correct  that  far  it  will  be  correct  when  carried  to 
its  last  analysis.  The  trade  of  this  country  is  the  aggregate 
trade  of  each  one  of  its  people,  and  each  one  in  trading  is 
actuated  by  profit,  and  it  is  to  the  interest  of  each,  and  of  all  to 
so  trade  as  to  make  the  largest  profit.  And  when  that  is  accom- 
plished each  person  has  attained  his  highest  prosperity,  and  the 
whole  country  has  reached  the  same  point. 

When  we  come  to  apply  these  principles  to  our  situation  we 
find  that  a  large  majority  of  our  people  produce  more  than  they 
can  consume,  and  more  than  the  whole  country  can  consume. 
The  surplus  must  either  be  worthless  or  it  must  be  sent  to  foreign 
markets  and  sold  to  those  whose  wants  require  it ;  by  thus 
exporting  and  selling  the  surplus  it  not  only  takes  on  value 
where  otherwise  it  would  have  none,  but  it  there  receives  its 


i'BEE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.  253 

highest  value.  And  it  not  only  does  not  decrease  the  value  of 
domestic  commerce  but  adds  to  it.  Our  foreign  trade  is  about 
$1,500,000,000  annually  in  round  numbers,  our  domestic  trade 
about  137,000,000,000  ;  or  our  foreign  trade  is  about  four  per 
cent,  of  the  whole.  Our  exports  constitute  in  round  numbers 
$750,000,000  and  imports  $750,000,000.  Xow  if  this  "little 
braggart,"  as  Mr.  Carnegie  terms  it,  is  to  be  destroyed  as  he 
demands,  the  first  question  that  occurs  to  us  is,  what  are  we  to  do 
with  the  $750,000,000  worth  of  exports  ?  This  is  a  surplus.  It 
is  so  much  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  home  market  to  consume. 
There  is  no  demand  for  it  at  home.  It  is  worth  $750,000,000  in 
the  foreign  markets.  It  does  not  injure  the  domestic  market  to 
send  it  away.  It  improves  it  by  selling  the  surplus  and  bringing 
that  value  back  in  the  surplus  of  others  for  which  it  is  exchanged. 
We  exchange  that  amount  of  things  which  Ave  do  not  want 
for  that  amount  of  things  which  we  do  want.  Both 
the  foreigners  and  ourselves  are  benefited  and  the  pi'osperity  of 
both  is  advanced.  But  the  full  measure  of  benefit  is  not  limited 
by  the  $750,000,000.  The  export  of  that  amount  by  enlarging 
the  demand  for  the  consumption  of  the  whole,  increases  the  value 
of  the  whole,  and  to  that  extent  improves  the  domestic  commerce. 

In  1881  the  exports  of  domestic  merchandise  reached  the 
sum  of  $884,000,000.  That  was  an  increase  over  our  exports  of 
1879  by  $185,000,000.  That  large  increase  in  exports  was  only 
made  possible  by  the  large  increase  in  imports  for  the  same  time. 
The  effect  on  domestic  commerce  was  greatly  beneficial.  The 
"  little  braggart  "  had  increased  $400,000,000  in  two  years.  All 
agricultural  and  manufacturing  products  rose  in  value,  and  the 
wealth  of  the  country  was  increased  many  hundred  millions  of 
dollars.  Did  that  lessen  the  prosperity  of  the  country  ?  Did  the 
increase  of  the  foreign  trade  decrease  the  domestic  trade  ?  Mr. 
Carnegie  says  "one  gains,  the  other  loses."  Here  both  gained; 
and  I  will  show  directly  the  correctness  of  my  proposition  by 
testimony  that  Mr.  Carnegie  will  not  and  can  not  controvert. 

Mr.  Carnegie,  anxious  to  have  me  understand  his  position, 
took  me  to  the  cotton  plant,  supposing  that  as  I  represented  cot- 
ton growers  I  was  familiar  with  the  great  staple.  He  says  that 
sixty  years  ago  we  only  consumed  52,000,000  pounds,  now  962,- 
000,000,  and  there  he  leaves  me.  But  what  I  want  to  know  is, 
what  is  to  become  of  the  more  than  2,000,000,000  pounds  that 


264  JiOTS  SIDKS  OF  THE  TARIFF  QVESTION. 

we  do  7Wt  consume?  Ever  since  the  beginning  of  the  cultivation 
of  cotton  we  have  been  exporting  a  large  surplus.  That  surplus 
is  increasing  and  our  only  dependence  for  its  sale  is  on  the  foreign 
market,  which  Mr.  Carnegie  is  trying  to  destroy.  I  insist  before 
it  is  destroyed  that  he  shall  provide  a  home  market  for  its  con- 
sumption. We  have  been  promised  that  market  for  a  hundred 
years.  We  have  been  submitting  to  heavy  protective  taxes  under 
the  promise  that  we  should  have  it.  But  we  are  further  from  it 
now  than  we  were  at  the  beginning  and  the  cotton  manufacturer 
is  still  asking  more  aid  under  the  promise  that  he  will,  *'in  the 
sweet  by-and-by,"  consume  all  our  product.  The  cotton  crop  of 
the  United  States  last  year  amounted  to  3,437,408,499  pounds, 
the  farm  value  of  which  was  1292,139,209.  Of  this  crop  the 
American  manufacturer  took  1,060,376,910  pounds,  and  the  re 
mainder,  2,337,031,589  pounds,  was  exported  to  foreign  manu- 
facturers to  the  profit  of  both  buyer  and  seller. 

This  is  foreign  commerce  and  Mr.  Carnegie  calls  it  "a,  little 
braggart,"  and  says  it  must  be  dethroned.  But  what  I  want  to 
know  of  Mr.  Carnegie  is,  when  our  foreign  commerce  is  inter- 
dicted and  destroyed  what  are  we  to  do  with  this  vast  surplus  that 
brought  $237,000,000  last  year  ?  We  cannot  consume  one  pound 
of  it.  Less  than  one-third  of  the  crop  gluts  the  home  market. 
Mr.  Carnegie  says  we  should  not  export  it.  Then  it  must  be  an 
entire  loss  to  the  producers,  and  he  says  that  is  the  highway  to 
prosperity.  The  greatest  prosperity  of  a  country  is  reached  when 
there  is  the  greatest  amount  of  wealth  produced  and  distributed 
by  its  labor.  That  occurs  when  all  its  labor  is  employed  in  har- 
mony with  the  laws  of  nature,  working  with  the  most  productive 
implements  and  with  the  highest  skill  and  freely  exchanging 
products  in  all  markets.  He  should  produce  at  the  lowest  cost 
and  sell  at  the  highest  and  buy  at  the  lowest  price.  This  is  just 
what  trade  accomplishes  when  it  is  free,  but  when  it  is  enslaved 
the  producer  is  often  compelled  to  sell  in  the  lowest  market  and 
buy  in  the  highest.  If  Mr.  Carnegie  succeeds  in 
"dethroning  the  little  braggart"  and  compelling  us  to 
sell  our  entire  product  in  the  home  market  he  will  greatly 
lower  the  prices  of  the  articles  we  export  and  greatly  enhance  the 
prices  of  the  domestic  articles  which  are  similar  to  those  we  now 
import.  That  will  decrease  wealth,  decrease  the  capacity  to  buy, 
and  decrease  domestic  production,  and  when  production  is  de- 


FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.  265 

creased,  the  transportation  and  exchange  of  domestic  products 
will  be  decreased  and  domestic  commerce  will  be  injured  instead 
of  benefited  by  the  death  of  the  "  little  braggart."  When  pro- 
duction, exchange,  and  commerce  are  shrinking  what  is  the  con- 
dition of  the  country  ?  Labor  is  paralyzed,  wages  sink  for  a  time 
and  then  stop  altogether,  and  adversity  sits  firmly  on  the  throne 
from  which  prosperity  has  been  driven.  I  have  shown,  I  think 
conclusively,  by  reason  that  the  highest  prosperity  of  a  country  is 
reached  when  all  markets  are  open  for  the  sale  of  the  products  of 
its  labor,  and  all  its  own  markets  open  for  the  purchase  of  the 
products  of  the  labor  of  others,  and  that  every  obstruction  inter- 
posed by  law  between  producer  and  consumer  is  injurious  to  both 
and  retards  the  prosperity  of  the  country  that  makes  the  law. 

I  will  now  sustain  that  reasoning  by  indisputable  testimony. 

From  1869  to  1873  our  foreign  trade  increased  1460,000,000, 
and  if  Mr.  Carnegie  is  correct  our  domestic  trade  lost  that 
amount,  and  domestic  production  was  decreased  by  that  amount. 
Let  us  see  how  it  really  did  affect  the  iron  business,  with  which 
Mr.  Carnegie  is  familiar.  The  importation^of  pig  iron  in  1870 
was  valued  at  $3,500,000  ;  1871,  $3,000,000  ;  1872,  $5,000,000 ; 
1873,  $7,000,000.  Mr.  Carnegie  says  where  foreign  commerce 
gains  domestic  commerce  loses,  but  what  says  the  official  report 
of  the  L'on  and  Steel  Association  ?  It  says  that  in  1870  we  pro- 
duced $52,000,000  worth  of  pig  iron  ;  in  1871,  $56,000,000 
worth,  and  in  1872,  $119,000,000.  Here  the  official  figures  of  his 
own  association  overwhelm  him  with  defeat.  The  foreign  trade 
of  Great  Britain  was  iiicreasing  during  the  same  period,  and  the 
official  report  of  Mr.  Swank  says  : 

**  The  year  1870  was  one  of  general  activity  in  the  iron  busi- 
ness of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.'' 

"  The  unprecedented  demand  for  iron  from  all  quarters  in- 
creased largely  and  immediately  to  the  benefit  of  the  British 
ironmasters,  whose  furnaces  and  rolling  mills  were  stimulated  to 
their  utmost  capacity.  Neither  the  continental  nations  nor  tiie 
United  States  could  supply  their  own  home  demand.  Prices  at 
once  advanced  in  the  British  market.  .  .  .  Simultaneously 
with  these  advances  tlie  British  coal  and  iron  miners  and  the  iron 
workers  renewed  the  agitation  for  an  advance  in  wages,  and  they 
were  generally  successful." 

This  certainly  does  not  indicate  that  the  increased  foreign 


256  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

trade  of  either  country  had  resulted  in  a  loss  to  the  domestic  trade, 
but  the  reverse.  It  certainly  indicates  increased  prosperity  when 
prices  are  rising  and  production  and  wages  increasing.  1  call 
Mr.  Carnegie's  attention  to  Mr.  Swank^s  statement  that  during 
that  period  when  our  foreign  trade  was  increasing  so  enormously 
the  United  States  was  unable  to  supply  its  own  home  demand. 
Mr.  Carnegie  doubted  if  there  ever  was  a  more  erroneous  state- 
ment made  than  the  one  for  which  I  made  myself  responsible ; 
that  there  could  be  no  surer  test  of  a  country's  prosperity  than 
the  increase  of  its  foreign  trade  and  no  surer  test  of  the  retardation 
of  that  prosperity  than  the  decrease  of  that  trade.  If  his  doubts 
are  not  dispelled  by  these  statements  from  his  own  association  I 
fear  he  will  live  and  die,  if  not  a  doubting  Thomas  a  doubting  An- 
drew.    Continuing  the  report  for  the  next  year  he  says  : 

"  The  year  1872  opened  with  an  increased  demand  for  iron  in 
nearly  all  civilized  countries.  Prices  advanced  rapidly  in  all 
markets.  The  supply  was  unequal  to  the  demand,  although  pro- 
duction was  everywhere  stimulated."  This  is  not  a  history  of 
domestic  depression,  but  a  history  of  a  period  of  the  highest  pros- 
perity. He  tells  us  that  during  this  year  forty  new  blast  furnaces 
were  erected.  It  was  impossible  to  satisfy  the  demand  with  exist- 
ing plants  and  the  heavily  increasing  importation.  Prices  of  pig 
iron  rose  in  Philadelphia  from  $30.50  per  ton  in  January  1871,  to 
153  per  ton  in  September  1872. 

Now  I  will  take  the  opposite  side  of  the  picture.  From  1873 
our  foreign  trade  began  to  decline,  and  our  imports  fell  from 
1642,000,000  in  1873  to  $445,000,000  in  1879.  The  importation 
of  pig''iron  declined  from  $7,000,000  in  1873  to  $3,000,000  in 
1874  ;  to  $2,000,000  in  1876,  and  to  $1,250,000  in  1878.  Now  if 
it  be  true  that  what  foreign  trade  lost  domestic  trade  gained,  we 
would  see  a  very  considerable  gain  in  domestic  production,  for 
the  decline  in  the  foreign  importation  exceeded  80  per  cent. 
Do  we  see  in  the  report  a  corresponding  increase  in  domestic  pro- 
duction ?  Instead  of  gaining  it  shows  a  like  heavy  decline.  The 
home  production  declined  from  $119,000,000  worth  in  1872,  to 
$67,000,000  in  1874  ;  $37,000,000  in  1876,  and  over  $36,000,000 
in  1878. 

Here  Mr.  Carnegie's  pet  theory  is  again  knocked  as  high  as 
Gilderoy's  kite. 

Speaking  of  this  same  period,  Mr.  Swank  in  his  report  says : 


FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.  267 

**The  decline  in  the  world's  demand  for  iron  which  commenced 
in  1873  has  continued  during  1874,  and  with  the  decline  in 
demand  there  has  ensued  a  resulting  fall  in  prices.  In  all  the 
iron-producing  countries  less  iron  has  been  made  in  1874  than 
was  made  in  either  1872  or  1873."  Again  he  says  :  "  The  reac- 
tion in  1874  has  been  as  general  and  decided  as  the  advance  in 
1873  was  unexpected  and  bewildering.  .  .  .  The  testimony 
of  statistics  and  of  all  calm  observers  shows  that  prostration  is 
greater  at  the  close  of  1874  than  it  was  at  the  close  of  1873,  and 
that  the  general  distress  is  greater.  At  least  a  million  of  skilled 
and  unskilled  working  men  and  working  women  in  this  country 
are  out  of  employment  to-day  because  there  is  no  work  for  them 
to  do."  Again:  "It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  wages  of 
English  and  Welsh  workingmen  have  fallen  as  rapidly  during 
the  past  year  as  the  wages  of  American  workmen.  .  .  .  But 
it  is  said  that  wages  have  lately  been  reduced  and  that  times  are 
now  very  hard  indeed.  This  is  so.  But  it  is  not  the  fault  of 
employers  that  wages  are  low  and  that  workingmen  are  every- 
where out  of  employment.  .  .  .  We  must  hereafter  be  con- 
tented with  lower  wages  for  labor  and  be  more  thankful  for  the 
opportunity  to  labor  at  all.  .  .  .  Now  (1874),  the  whole 
country  is  suffering  from  a  great  calamity  which  may  well  be 
likened  to  a  famine  or  a  flood,  for  it  produces  suffering  for  the 
necessaries  of  life  in  tens  of  thousaiuls  of  homes.  Last  winter 
there  were  soup  houses  and  charitable  societies  everywhere  and 
strong  men  begged  from  door  to  door  for  something  to  eat.  .  .  . 
Wages  have  everywhere  fallen  and  a  million  of  men  have  been 
refused  any  wages  at  all.  ...  Of  fifty  persons  who  are  now 
out  of  employment  forty-nine  are  compulsorily  so,  and  would  be 
glad  to  get  work.  .  .  .  They  must  be  willing  to  accept  lower 
wages  ;  they  must  lessen  their  expenses,  save  where  they  formerly 
wasted,  go  slow  where  they  formerly  went  fast." 

What  a  gloomy  picture  is  here  drawn  of  the  country  at  a 
period  when  its  foreign  trade  was  falling  off,  and  when,  as  Mr. 
Carnegie  asserts,  its  domestic  trade  would  gain.  Millions  out  of 
work  ;  all  would  be  glad  to  work  ;  must  be  content  with  lower 
wages ;  be  thankful  to  get  work  at  all ;  prices  falling,  labor 
paralyzed,  production  arrested,  workmen  begging  from  door  to 
door  the  necessities  of  life  not  to  be  procured,  and  hunger  and 
starvation   looking  into    thousands    of    homes.      This    is    Mr. 


268  BOTH  HIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Carnegie's  period  of  prosperity.  The  report  for  1877  further 
says,  "  If  the  rate  of  decrease  which  marked  the  period  from  1873 
to  1876  were  to  be  continued  the  production  of  pig  iron  in  the 
United  States  would  entirely  cease  in  1884,  less  than  eight  years 
from  the  present  time,  and  our  furnace  stacks  would  only  be  useful 
as  observatories  for  the  study  of  astronomy."  It  might  be  better 
before  that  melancholy  period  arrives,  when  the  smoke  stacks  are 
only  useful  for  the  study  of  astronomy,  for  their  owners  to  pay  a 
little  more  attention  to  the  study  of  political  economy. 

During  this  dark  period  Great  Britain  was  the  constant  com- 
panion of  the  United  States.  Her  foreign  trade  had  fallen  from 
13,411,000,000  in  1873  to  $3,058,000,000  in  1879,  and  the  decline 
of  her  foreign  trade  pointed  its  skeleton  finger  to  the  distress  and 
suffering  among  her  own  people.  "  Not  one-half  of  the  blast 
furnaces  and  rolling  mills  of  the  Kingdom  were  in  operation." 
The  secretary  of  the  British  iron  trade,  in  speaking  of  the  condi- 
tion of  that  trade  for  the  years  1878  and  1879,  says,  "Approached 
from  whatever  point  of  view  we  may  choose  to  adopt,  the  retro- 
spect of  1878  is,  in  almost  every  aspect,  one  of  great  gloom  and 
depression.  It  was  generally  believed,  at  the  end  of  1877,  that 
it  would  be  diflficult  if  not  almost  impossible,  to  pass  through 
another  year  equally  marked  by  commercial  trouble  and  disaster  ; 
but  during  the  past  twelve  months  manufacturers  have  found  on 
the  lowest  depths,  a  deeper  still."  Many  more  citations  might  be 
given  showing  the  destitution  and  suffering  of  the  poor  and  the 
general  depression  of  business.  But  I  will  dismiss  this  period 
and  take  up  Mr.  Carnegie's  chosen  period  of  1880,  1881,  1882, 
and  1883,  and  see  whether  they  sustain  his  position  that  increase 
of  foreign  trade  means  decrease  of  domestic  trade,  and  vice  versa. 

Our  foreign  trade  in  1879  was  $1,150,000,000.  It  increased 
to  $1,547,000,000  in  1883.  The  foreign  trade  of  Great  Britain 
was  $3,058,000,000  in  1879,  and  $3,661,000,000  in  1883.  Both 
countries  had  the  largest  foreign  trade  in  the  latter  year.  Mr. 
Swank  says  in  his  report  of  this  period:  "  In  the  closing  months 
of  1879  excitement  and  speculation  took  the  place  of  the  gloom 
and  discouragement  with  which  the  American  iron  trade  had 
been  so  familiar  scarce  one  year  before,  and  the  business  of  buying 
and  selling  iron  became  close  neighbor  to  that  of  gambling  in 
stocks."  It  is  strange  that  this  great  prosperity  that  seemed  to 
be  filling  the  bosoms  of  iron  traders  with  exceeding  great  joy 


FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.  269 

should  be  at  a  time  when  the  imports  of  pig  iron  had  risen  from 
$1,250,000  in  1878  to  $14,654,000  in  1880,  and  when  the  import- 
ations  of  scrap  iron  rose  from  $300,000  worth  in  1878  to  $13,- 
000,000  worth  in  1880.  But  that  joy  is  easily  accounted  for 
when  we  see  that  the  domestic  production  of  pig  iron  rose  from 
$36,000,000  in  1878  to  $101,000,000  worth  in  1880.  Mr.  Swank 
calls  the  year  1880  the  "  boom  "  year,  and  1881  was  even  better 
than  1880,  and  he  tells  us  that  "  all  the  iron  making  world  has 
experienced  a  prosperity  akin  to  that  which  was  restored  to  the 
iron  and  steel  industries  of  our  own  country  in  1879."  In  1881 
the  import  of  pig  iron  fell  off  and  so  did  the  domestic  produc- 
tion ;  in  1882  the  import  increased  and  so  did  the  domestic  pro- 
duction. For  each  year  from  1882  to  1885  the  imports  of  pig 
iron  fell  off  and  so  did  the  domestic  production.  In  1886  the 
importations  again  increased  heavily  and  so  did  the  domestic 
production,  and  in  1887  both  increased  again,  and  the  report  of 
the  Association  says  : 

"  The  year  1886  was  one  of  the  most  active  years  the  American 
iron  trade  has  ever  experienced,'^  and  the  next  year  it  says, 
•'*  The  year  1887  was  the  most  active  year  in  the  history  of  the 
American  iron  trade,  far  exceeding  all  previous  years,  including 
the  remarkable  year  1886."  Mr.  Carnegie  asks  me  when  I  "  next 
venture  to  lift  my  powerful  pen,"  to  explain  my  theory  in  refer- 
ence to  the  decade  from  1880  to  1890.  Mr.  Carnegie  should  not 
be  sarcastic  in  dealing  with  so  dry  a  subject  as  political  economy, 
he  will  find  logic  the  better  weapon.  The  figures  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  a  very  powerful  pen.  Like  Caesars  wounds,  they 
speak  for  themselves.  Mr.  Carnegie  obscures  the  point  in  contro- 
versy by  grouping  the  years  together.  From  1880,  1881  and  1882 
foreign  commerce  was  increasing,  domestic  commerce  was  in- 
creasing, and  national  wealth  and  prosperity  was  increasing.  In 
1882  our  imports  reached  their  highest  point,  and  in  1883  our  ex- 
ports reached  their  highest  point.  From  this  time  our  foreign 
trade  declined,  our  imports  touching  their  lowest  point  in  1885  and 
our  exports  in  1886.  During  this  period  our  foreign  trade  declined, 
our  domestic  trade  declined,  and  the  growth  of  our  national  wealth 
and  prosperity  were  retarded.  The  same  fact  occurred  in  Great 
Britain.  Her  foreign  trade  fell  off  year  by  year  from  1883  to 
1887.  It  was  $3,600,000,000  in  1883;  $3,400,000,000  in  1884  ; 
§3,200,000,000  in  1885;  $3,092,000,000  in  1886,  and  $3,081,000,000 


260  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

iu  1887.  That  constant  and  heavy  decline  ought  to  have  given 
great  activity  to  domestic  industry  in  Great  Britain.  But  Mr. 
Swank's  report  for  1886  says  of  the  iron  producing  countries  of 
Europe,  "  The  general  situation  was  worse  in  1884  than  in  1883, 
worse  in  1885  than  in  1884,  and  worse  in  the  greater  part  of  1886 
than  in  1885.  The  depression  during  the  four  years  mentioned 
was,  however,  most  felt  in  Great  Britain." 

Now  all  this  is  exceedingly  strange  if  Mr.  Carnegie's  theory  is 
correct.  He  says  from  1878  to  1887,  the  foreign  commerce  of 
Great  Britain  did  not  increase,  but  actually  decreased.  It  did  both 
as  I  have  shown,  and  while  its  foreign  commerce  was  increasing  its 
wealth  and  prosperity  were  increasing  at  a  higher  rate  and  while  it 
was  decreasing  they  were  increasing  at  a  lower  rate.  Her  wealth 
and  prosperity  were  not  destroyed;  only  retarded,  or  as  engineers 
say,  slowed  up.  In  1888  her  foreign  trade  rose  to  $3,200,000,000, 
and  in  1889  to  $3,400,000,000,  and  again  her  domestic  production 
revived  and  there  was  great  prosperity.  In  speaking  of  the  iron 
business  of  Europe  Mr.  Swank  says  in  his  report  for  1889  : 

"The  year  1889  was  therefore  one  of  the  most  active  and  one 
of  the  most  prosperous  in  the  history  of  the  European  iron  trade." 

"  The  years  1887,  1888,  and  1889  were  all  years  of  continally 
increasing  activity  and  prosperity  for  European  iron  and  steel 
manufacturers."  Mr.  Carnegie  says  that  during  the  ten  years 
from  1880  to  1889,  "  when  our  foreign  commerce  actually  de- 
clined, no  nation  ever  made  wealth  so  fast."  During  that  ten 
years  it  declined  for  periods  and  advanced  for  periods,  and 
domestic  commerce  did  the  same  thing  for  the  same  time.  Cer- 
tainly wealth  was  not  made  "so  fast "  when  both  were  declining, 
but  it  was  made  fast  when  both  were  advancing.  The  period 
ends  with  our  foreign  trade  lower  in  1889  than  in  1880,  and  with 
the  domestic  prosperity  lower  also.  The  value  of  the  agricul- 
tural crop  of  1889  was  $100,000,000  less  than  the  crop  of  1879. 
Is  that  the  road  to  national  wealth  ?  If  the  crops  of  corn, 
wheat,  oats,  rye,  barley,  buckwheat,  potatoes,  hay,  cotton 
and  tobacco  produced  in  1889  had  the  prices  of  1881,  when 
we  had  the  largest  export  of  agricultural  products  we  have 
ever  had,  they  would  have  been  worth  $1,570,000,000 
more  than  they  were.  Surely  that  is  not  the  road  to  national 
wealth  and  prosperity.  Prices  have  been  falling  since  1882,  and 
they  are  lower  now  than  they  have  been  for  many  years,  and 


FREE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TEADE.  2(U 

lowering  prices  do  not  increase  the  value  of  the  national  wealth. 
I  do  not  doubt  the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Carnegie's  statement  that  in 
the  last  ten  years  we  have  made  wealth  faster  than  any  other 
nation.  The  nations  of  Europe  are  old,  we  are  young.  We  ex- 
cel them  in  everything.  But  that  is  not  the  point  of  controversy, 
Mr.  Carnegie  was  careful  not  to  say  that  we  had  increased  the 
national  wealth  faster  in  the  last  ten  years  than  we  had  ever  done. 
He  knew  that  from  1850  to  1860  we  increased  our  national  wealth 
126  per  cent.,  and  during  that  time  we  increased  our  foreign  com- 
merce over  140  per  cent.  Our  national  wealth  in  1880  was  esti- 
mated at  143,000,000,000.  It  is  now  estimated  at  $60,000,000,000. 
That  is  about  40  per  cent.,  and  very  far  behind  126  per  cent. 

Mr.  Carnegie  demands  the  destruction  of  our  entire  foreign 
trade,  and  says  that  will  enhance  our  prosperity.  When  the 
$750,000,000  worth  of  products  now  coming  are  stopped  we  will 
have  to  produce  the  same  things  at  home  at  greater  cost  and  with 
greater  expenditure  of  labor.  They  come  to  us  now  because  they 
are  produced  in  other  countries  at  less  cost  and  with  less  expendi- 
ture of  labor.  If  these  imports  are  prohibited  the  supply  will  be 
decreased  to  that  extent  and  prices  of  the  similar  domestic  pro- 
duct will  be  correspondingly  increased,  both  on  account  of  greater 
cost  of  production  and  the  decrease  of  the  supply.  How  much 
will  it  increase  the  cost  of  the  annual  product  of  our  7,000,000,000 
of  manufactures  ?  We  are  constantly  told  that  our  present  rates  of 
taxation,  averaging  45  per  cent.,  are  not  sufficient  to  cover  the 
difference  between  labor-cost  here  and  in  other  countries,  and 
Congress  has  just  passed  a  bill  to  further  increase  rates  for  that 
purpose.  Now  if  the  cost  of  our  annual  product  is  enhanced  30 
per  cent,  on  account  of  increased  expenditure  for  labor,  then  the 
additional  cost  to  the  people  is  over  $2,000,000,000  which  must  be 
made  by  that  much  more  labor.  In  other  words,  if  each  laborer 
could  earn  a  dollar  a  day  he  would  have  to  work  2,000,000,000  more 
days  to  pay  for  the  enhanced  cost  of  the  goods  than  he  would  be 
required  to  do  if  he  procured  thum  from  foreign  countries,  and 
we  are  seriously  told  that  that  is  the  way  to  increase  the  national 
wealth  and  prosperity.  In  the  open  markets  of  the  world,  with 
free  and  unobstructed  trade,  we  could  procure  these  goods  for 
15,000,000,000,  but  by  the  prohibition  of  importation  and  destruc- 
tion of  our  foreign  trade  we  have  to  pay  $7,000,000,000  ;  that  is, 
we  have  to  work  2,000,000,000  more  days  to  procure  the  same 


262  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

amount  of  product  we  could  procure  by  excliange  in  open  market. 
If  2,000,000,000  seems  too  large  for  Mr.  Carnegie  we  will  take 
1,000,000,000.  He  can  take  any  number  he  pleases.  The  num- 
ber is  not  important. 

For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  correctness  of  his  principle  one 
day  is  as  good  as  a  million.  He  contends  that  if  we  keep  out  of 
our  country  the  things  that  we  cannot  produce  in  competition 
with  foreign  countries  because  of  their  cheaper  labor-cost  there 
and  the  dearer  labor-cost  of  the  similar  domestic  product  here, 
and  by  means  of  the  prohibition  of  importation  permit  the  pro- 
duction here  at  the  dearer  labor  cost,  we  will  thereby  add  to  the 
wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  country.  In  other  words,  that  if  we 
produce  forty  bushels  of  wheat  worth  $40  and  send  it  to  England 
and  excliange  it  for  two  tons  of  steel  rails  at  120  per  ton  and  im- 
port them  here  we  have  not  increased  the  national  wealth  as  fast 
as  if  we  exchanged  the  forty  bushels  of  wheat  at  Pittsburgh  for 
one  ton  of  steel  rails  ;  that  working  twice  as  long  to  procure  one 
ton  is  the  way  to  prosperity.  And  if  a  man  could  make  ten  hats 
by  ten  hours'  work  it  is  far  better  for  the  country  and  the  hatter 
to  make  one  hat  in  ten  hours.  The  principle  is  that  the  more 
work  that  is  required  to  produce  a  given  thing  the  more  wealth 
the  laborer  makes  and  the  more  rapidly  the  country  accumulates 
wealth  and  ascends  toward  the  topmost  round  of  the  ladder  to 
prosperity.  This  is  not  a  novel  doctrine  for  which  Mr.  Carnegie 
has  made  himself  responsible.  When  he  demands  that  "  the 
little  braggart "  shall  be  dethroned  he  expresses  the  same  idea 
so  persistently  urged  by  Henry  C.  Carey,  that  it  would  be 
greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  United  States  if  all  the  oceans 
were  on  fire,  and  by  Prof.  Thompson  that  it  would  greatly  redound 
to  the  advantage  of  our  country  to  have  all  the  sailors  hung. 
Like  many  other  old  things,  it  improves  by  age.  This  idea  carried 
out  would  require  forty  million  laborers  by  hand  to  turn  out  the 
$7,000,000,000  of  manufactured  product  now  turned  out  by  ma- 
chinery. The  machine  multiplies  production  and  cheapens  cost, 
and  one  man  by  machinery  is  turning  out  now  what  it  would 
require  at  least  ten  men  to  do  by  hand.  Of  course,  in  the  varied 
branches  of  our  national  employment  we  have  to  distribute  our 
labor,  some  to  agriculture  and  mines,  some  to  manufactures,  and 
some  to  commercial  and  other  occupations.  We  only  have  about 
^0,000,000  laborers  in  all  the  departments  of  our  national  industry. 


t'REE  TRADE  AGAINST  SLAVE  TRADE.  263 

We  can  only  spare  4,000,000  for  manufactures,  and  as  they 
by  hand  could  only  produce  $70,000,000  worth  instead  of  $7,000,- 
000,000  worth,  we  would  have  to  draw  in  our  wants  and  dis- 
pense with  nine-tenths  of  the  manufactures  we  now  consume,  and 
thus  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Carnegie's  theory  advance  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country.  To  carry  out  the  principle  to  its  greatest 
beneficence  we  should  dispense  with  the  cotton  gin  and  pick  the 
lint  from  the  seed  with  our  fingers  ;  we  should  dispense  with  the 
steam  reaper  and  pull  the  wheat  out  of  the  ground  and  thresh  it 
with  flails ;  we  should  burn  the  spinning  jenny  and  power  loom 
and  return  to  the  ancient  methods.  The  idea  is  very  attractive, 
and  when  presented  to  the  cultivated  and  aesthetic  taste,  it  lingers 
like  the  perfume  of  flowers  in  a  closed  room.  I  fear,  however, 
that  Mr.  Carnegie  will  not  succeed  in  getting  the  "rural  com- 
munities in  Texas  "  and  other  portions  of  the  country  to  see  the 
excellence  of  the  system  which  he  has  embraced  with  such  en- 
thusiasm and  advocates  with  such  zeal. 

He  is  greatly  astonished  that  even  in  "  rural  communities " 
any  one  should  say  that  any  branch  of  American  manufactures 
was  a  monopoly.  Mr.  Carnegie  belongs  to  an  association  for 
manufacturing  steel  rails.  The  association  own  patents  which 
prohibit  domestic  competition,  and  the  tariff  prohibits  foreign 
competition,  and  yet,  with  all  his  cultivation,  he  cannot  see  that 
the  manufacture  of  steel  rails  is  a  monopoly.  He  has  admitted 
that  as  one  of  the  parties  in  that  association  he  drew  out  as  his 
part  of  the  profits  in  one  year  $1,500,000.  That  is  a  very  generous 
contribution  by  the  tax  payers  to  one  of  the  parties  engaged  in  a 
pauper  industry  which  they  claim  must  be  supported  by  the 
government  or  it  must  perish.  How  much  his  associates  have 
drawn  he  has  not  stated.  It  would  be  very  interesting  reading 
to  give  the  whole  to  the  public.  I  would  suggest  to  him  when  he 
next  treats  on  the  subject  to  take  the  whole  country  into  his 
confidence,  tell  them  how  much  capital  he  had  when  he  embarked 
into  manufacturing  steel  rails ;  how  much  money  he  has  made 
out  of  the  pauper  business  after  paying  his  workmen  the  wages 
he  is  compelled  to  pay  them  in  the  open  market  in  competition 
with  all  other  workmen;  how  much  of  the  $17  protection  he  has 
given  them.  This  information  would  supply  the  raw  material 
for  an  instructive  and  entertaining  work  on  Triumphant 
Plutocracy.  Roger  Q.  Mills, 


APPENDIX. 

The  President's  Panacea. 


NOTE, 


'*  The  President's  Panacea "  appeared  originally  as  a  sympo- 
sium  in  the  Noeth  American  Eeview  for  April,  1888,  shortly 
after  the  famous  message  in  which  President  Cleveland  recom- 
mended a  revision  of  the  tariff. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  PANACEA. 


The  main  legislative  issue  before  the  country  to-day  is  unques- 
tionably the  Tariff  issue.  Since  the  war  of  the  Rebellion  no 
question  so  momentous,  or  so  threatening  of  disquiet  and  danger, 
has  been  appealed  to  the  judgment  of  the  American  people. 

Upon  this  vital  and  vexed  issue  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the 
country  has  set  forth  his  views.  But  before  action  is  finally 
taken  in  one  direction  or  another,  it  is  well  to  pause  and  call 
a  halt  to  consider  whether  these  immature  judgments  on  the 
Tariff  do  not  assail  the  very  firesides  of  the  wage-earners  and 
imperil  the  vast  capital  employed  in  the  mighty  industries  that 
have  taken  root  and  attained  their  growth  and  vitality  under  pro- 
tection. 

The  trouble  in  the  conduct  of  such  discussions  as  the  Tariff 
question  calls  forth  often  lies  in  the  absence  of  practical  knowl- 
edge of  the  interests  involved.  This  practical  knowledge  can 
come  from  no  better  source  than  from  leading  representatives  of 
the  great  industries  of  the  country.  Certainly  no  better  spokes- 
men would  seem  obtainable  than  the  men  conspicuously  connected 
with  the  most  important  interests  now  threatened. 

It  might  naturally  have  been  supposed  that  such  testimony 
would  have  been  sought  by  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  at 
Wasliington.  Not  only,  however,  has  such  testimony  been 
ignored,  but  actually  rejected  when  offered.  But  an  appeal  lies 
from  the  majority  of  that  committee  to  the  people,  and  it  now 
finds  expression  in  this  Review,  a  large  number  of  gentlemen 
identified  with  great  interests  affected  presenting  their  views, 
in  answer  to  the  question  as  to  what  would  be  tlie  effect  upon 
their  particular  industries  or  interests  of  any  legislative  meas- 
ures  passed    upon  the  lines  of    President  Cleveland's  message. 


268  BOTH  SIDES  OF  TItE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Limitations  of  space  have  forbidden  any  further  multiplica- 
tion of  these  views  or  an  absolutely  complete  representation  of 
the  interests  involved.  The  industries  embraced,  however,  in  this 
valuable  collection  of  opinions  furnish  sustenance  to  vast  multi- 
tudes of  American  workmen,  whose  homes  would  be  threatened  by 
any  unwise  revision  of  the  Tariff,  while  the  capital  involved  runs 
into  billions. 

Already  the  evil  effects  of  the  President's  message  are  sadly 
apparent  in  the  **  Mills  Bill " — a  measure  directed  against  many 
industries  of  the  country,  and  recently  described  to  me  by  a  leading 
manufacturer,  of  Democratic  persuasion,  as  '^the  most  ingenious 
bill  possible  for  shutting  up  all  the  iron  furnaces  of  the  Atlantic 
coast.*' 

Indeed,  we  have  only  to  look  at  the  records  of  Congress  to 
discover  how  many  Democrats  of  standing,  men  of  such  genuine 
Democratic  stamp  and  statesmanlike  qualities  as  Mr.  Hewitt, 
are  committed  to  a  policy  which  differs  as  widely  as  the  poles 
from  that  laid  down  in  the  message  of  the  Democratic  President. 

Not  all  the  sophism  in  the  world  can  veil  from  the  American 
workman  the  inference  that  this  message  bears  within  it  a  death 
warrant  to  his  creature  comforts.  No  figures  and  no  sophisms 
could  reconcile  him  to  the  lot  of  the  laborer  as  we  may  see  him  in 
the  older  countries,  badly  clad  in  his  hovel,  and  living  in  want  and 
ignorance.  It  was  not  for  this  that  the  emigrant  came  to  seek 
a  new  home  in  a  new  country. 

Allek  Thorndikb  Rice. 


lEON   AND    STEEL. 


The  effect  of  the  tariff  legislation  recommended  by  the  Presi- 
dent in  his  recent  message  would  be  disastrous  to  the  iron  and  steel 
industries  of  the  country,  as  have  been  the  attempts  to  carry  out 
such  lame  theories  in  the  past.  Henry  Clay  said  i^i  1832 :  "  If  I 
were  to  select  any  term  of  seven  years  since  the  adoption  of  the 
present  constitution  which  exhibited  a  scene  of  the  most  wide- 
spread dismay  and  desolation,  it  would  be  exactly  that  term  of 
seven  years  which  immediately  preceded  the  establishment  of  the 
tariff  of  1824.  If  the  term  of  seven  years  were  to  be  selected  of 
the  greatest  prosperity  which  this  people  have  enjoyed  since  the 


TSe  Presidents  panacea.  ^60 

establisliment  of  their  present  constitution,  it  would  be  exactly 
that  period  of  seven  years  which  immediately  followed  the  passage 
of  the  tariff  of  1824." 

The  tariff  of  1846  drove  into  bankruptcy  ninety  per  cent,  of  all 
those  engaged  in  the  manufacturing  of  iron  in  Pennsylvania.  Abram 
S.  Hewitt  wrote  in  1849  :  *'  Of  fifteen  rail  mills,  only  two  are  in 
operation,  doing  partial  work,  and  that  only  because  their  inland 
position  secured  them  against  foreign  competition  for  the  limited 
orders  of  neighboring  railroads;  and  when  these  are  executed,  not 
a  single  rail  mill  will  be  at  work  in  the  land." 

Employment  of  workmen  was  greatly  diminislied,  resulting  in 
extremely  low  wages  for  those  so  fortunate  as  to  secure  it.  In 
this  city  of  Pittsburgh,  famed  for  the  industry  and  frugality  of 
its  citizens,  as  well  as  the  skill  and  genius  of  its  mechanics, 
thoughtful  men,  with  strong  arms  and  willing  hands,  were  re- 
duced to  idleness  and  want.  These  worthy  people  were  compelled 
to  accept  the  charities  of  the  more  fortunate,  and  get  from  the 
soup  stations,  established  for  the  purpose,  sustenance  for  them- 
selves and  their  families,  and  this  at  a  time  when  the  products  of 
the  farm  were  absurdly  cheap  in  Pennsylvania ;  when  in  the 
Western  States  corn  was  burned  for  fuel,  and  other  grain  remained 
in  stacks  from  year  to  year  unthreshed.  These  dire  consequences 
were  not  confined  to  the  iron  interests,  but  affected  all  branches 
of  industry  alike  throughout  the  country.  The  Government  was 
brought  to  the  verge  of  bankruptcy  by  the  same  cause. 

The  full  force  of  the  blow  of  the  tariff  for  revenue  only  of  1846 
was  not  felt  because  of  the  Irish  famine,  which  created  a  demand 
for  all  our  surplus  grain ;  the  Mexican  War,  which  gave  employ- 
ment to  men  and  circulation  to  money ;  the  acquisition  of  Cal- 
ifornia, and  the  discovery  of  precious  metals  ;  the  wars  and  rumors 
of  wars  in  Europe,  which  caused  an  abnormal  demand  for  our 
products. 

The  tariff  is  simply  a  question  of  wages  and  rate  of  interest. 
If  it  were  possible  to  make  the  interest  rate  here  as  low  as  it  is  in 
other  countries  for  business  purposes,  before  we  shall  have  ac- 
quired a  corresponding  amount  of  capital ;  if  it  were  wise,  desir- 
able or  possible  to  reduce  wages  to  the  pinching  standard  of  other 
countries,  where  every  member  of  a  family,  old  and  young,  male 
and  female,  is  compelled  to  labor  to  earn  a  miserable  living,  there 
would  be  no  necessity  for  a  protective  tariff,  because  our  natural 


270  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

advantages  are  quite  equal  to  the  best.  But,  if  we  favor  "the 
policy  which  inspires  labor  with  hope,  and  crowns  it  with  dignity  ; 
which  gives  safety  to  capital,  and  protects  its  increase  ;  which 
secures  political  power  to  every  citizen,  comfort  and  culture  to 
every  home,'^  we  must  have  protection  against  the  products  of 
foreign  cheap  labor,  which  will  assure  contentment  as  well  as 
loyalty  to,  and  veneration  for,  a  government  by  the  people. 

In  addition  to  the  wonderful  development  of  this  great  coun- 
try since  1860,  are  not  the  comfortable  homes  of  the  working  men, 
and  the  grand  aggregate  of  deposits  in  savings  banks  acquired 
since  that  time,  notwithstanding  the  intervening  wasting  war,  in- 
dubitable testimony  in  behalf  of  a  protective  tariff  ? 

Why  the  President  associates  the  tariff  with  combinations  and 
trusts  is  not  clear.  They  are  temporary  expedients  against  fierce 
competition,  which  only  serve  (even  when  conducted  within  the 
law)  to  invite  increased  competition,  and  render  the  last  state  of 
those  who  join  them  worse  than  the  first.  George  Stephenson 
said  that  "where  combination  is  possible,  competition  is  impossi- 
ble." In  this  land  of  liberty,  the  proposition  must  be  reversed. 
Where  competition  is  possible,  combination  is  impossible. 

Mr.  Cleveland's  logic  in  endeavoring  to  show  that  man's  con- 
dition may  be  bettered  by  diminishing  his  ability  to  earn,  is  hazy, 
to  say  the  least.  B.  F.  Jones. 

PiTTSBUEGH,  Pa. 


IRON  ORE. 


In  the  production  of  last  year's  grand  aggregate  of  American 
iron  and  steel,  there  were  used  12,500,000  tons  of  iron  ore.  Of 
this  quantity,  about  11,300,000  tons  were  raised  from  our 
American  mines  and  carried  by  American  ships  and  rail- 
roads to  the  furnace  and  the  mill,  while  1,194,301  tons 
were  imported,  mainly  from  Spain,  Africa,  Italy  and  Cuba,  and 
paid  a  duty  of  seventy-five  cents  per  ton.  Every  ton  of  these 
importations  displaced  a  ton  of  American  ore.  About  three-fifths 
of  this  foreign  ore  took  the  place,  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  of 
Northern  New  York,  Champlain,  Hudson  River,  New  Jersey,  and 
Eastern  Pennsylvania  ores,  and  two-fifths  went  over  the  mountains 
to  displace  at  Johnstown,  Pittsburgh  and  Wheeling,   an  equal 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  PANACEA.  271 

quantity  of  Lake  Superior  and  Missouri  ores.  Southern  ore  in- 
dustries, newly  born,  will  soon  feel  the  same  pressure,  the  same 
loss  of  market.  Hampton  Roads  will  be  the  entrepot  for  foreign 
ores  into  Southern  ore  fields. 

But  why  not  remove  this  small  defense  of  American  ore  pro- 
duction, seventy-five  cents  per  ton  ?  A  tariff  framed  that  way 
would  be  in  line  with  the  President's  ideas.  There  is  one  supreme 
obstacle,  the  question  of  wages — wages  for  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  laborers.  The  drill  and  the  pick  below  the  surface  only 
begin  the  process.  After  them  come  the  hoisting  machinery,  the 
docks,  the  railroads,  the  shipping  ;  vast  systems  of  interlocked, 
interdependent  industries.  In  the  mining  and  transportation  to 
the  mills  and  furnaces  that  consume  it,  of  Lake  Superior  ore 
alone,  1150,000,000  of  capital  is  invested.  There  it  is  planted,  and 
with  all  its  enormous  labor  occupation.  It  takes  the  risk  with  its 
dependent  labor,  of  waste  and  final  destruction  when  mines 
become  exhausted,  or  when  its  market,  as  in  case  of  dispalcement 
by  foreign  ores,  is  destroyed.  It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that 
against  the  40  miles  of  average  distance  that  ores,  fuel,  and  lime- 
stone, are  carried  to  the  furnace  in  Great  Britain,  are  400  miles 
in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Jeremiah  Head,  well  known  in  the  United  States  and  in 
Europe,  recently  read  a  paper  before  the  Mechanical  Science  Sec- 
tion of  the  British  Association  on  the  iron  mines  of  Bilbao,  Spain. 
He  gave  the  following  comparative  statements  : 

The  hours  of  labor  per  week  were  :  At  Bilbao,  72  ;  in  Cleveland 
District,  England,  46  ;  on  Lake  Superior,  55  to  60.  Wages  per 
(lay  for  drillers  and  miners  at  Bilbao,  60  to  72  cents  :  Cleveland, 
drillers  and  miners,  $1.21;  Lake  Superior,  drillers  and  miners, 
$2.25  to  $2.75.  Wages  per  day  for  common  laborers  at  Bilbao, 
36  to  60  cents  ;  Cleveland,  common  laborers,  72  to  84  cents  ;  Lake 
Superior,  $1.60  to  $2.  Wages  per  day  for  boys  or  women,  Bilbao, 
24  to  36  cents ;  (Ueveland,  boys  or  women,  24  to  60  cents  ;  Lake 
Superior,  $1  to  $1.25.  Wages  of  miners,  then,  on  Lake  Superior 
arc  more  than  three  and  three-quarter  times  what  they  are  at 
Bilbao,  and  more  than  double  those  paid  in  the  Cleveland  District. 
The  labor  cost  to  a  ton  of  ore  on  Lake  Superior  would  be  ten  times 
what  it  is  at  Bilbao,  and  more  than  four  times  what  it  is  at  Cleve- 
land. The  average  metallic  content  of  Lake  Superior  ore  is  a 
little  more  than  Bilbao,  but  the  labor  cost  of  a  ton  of  iron  ore  in 


272  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

the  Lake  Superior  region  would  be  at  least  eight  or  nine  timea 
that  at  Bilbao.  Under  these  labor  conditions  and  the  present  rate 
of  duty,  importations  are  likely  to  continue  to  increase.  In  that 
event  wages  in  American  ore  production  must  decline,  or  a  large 
number  of  American  mines  will  be  closed  and  the  men  pushed  out 
to  crowd  laborers  in  other  industries.  This  process  began  three 
years  ago  in  New  Jersey.  Prof.  George  H.  Cook,  in  his  annual 
report  for  1884,  said  :  **Tlie  low  price  of  iron  ore  and  the  light 
demand  for  ore  at  almost  any  figure  have  caused  a  large  shrinkage 
in  the  production  and  closed  many  of  our  mines.  The  large  and 
increasing  importations  of  iron  ore  from  Spain  and  Africa  also 
operate  against  our  mines."  And  yet  the  Kevenue  Keformer 
wants  "  free  ore." 

The  consumers  of  ore,  however,  look  further  ahead.  They 
said — the  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  of  the  United  States, 
assembled  in  convention  at  Cresson,  Pa.,  September,  1883 — by 
unanimous  vote,  that  the  duty  on  ore  ought  to  be  eighty-five 
cents  per  ton. 

The  Eastern  Pig  -Iron  Association,  in  whose  district  all  the 
importations  of  ore  are  landed,  in  its  official  reply  to  the  circular 
of  tariff  inquiry  sent  out  by  Secretary  Manning,  in  November, 
1885,  vigorously  opposed  the  lowering  of  the  duty  on  ore.  The 
retention  of  at  least  the  present  rate  was  strenuously  urged  in  the 
interest  of  the  safety  and  the  permanent  prosperity  of  the  iron 
and  steel  manufactures  of  the  United  States.  The  full  equaliza- 
tion of  the  labor  cost,  between  foreign  and  domestic  ores,  would, 
of  course,  require  a  much  higher  duty  than  the  present  rate. 

Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie,  the  largest  buyer  and  consumer  of  iron 
ore  in  the  United  States,  and  who  knows  very  well  that  the  reli- 
ance of  the  American  consumer  for  cheap  manufactures  of  iron 
and  steel  must  be  upon  American  ore,  very  sharply  puts  the  case 
in  these  words  :  "  Spanish  labor  in  the  mines  fifty  cents  per  day, 
and  labor  in  the  mines  of  Lake  Superior  two  dollars  per  day,  with 
cost  of  transport  less  from  Spain  to  seaboard  furnaces  than  from 
Lake  Superior  to  furnaces  in  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania,  settled  the 
question  of  free  ore,  as  it  will  settle  the  question  of  free  coal." 

The  iron  ore  of  commerce  is  distinctively  a  product  of  enormous 
combinations  of  capital  and  labor.  Its  designation  by  theorists 
as  "raw  material"  does  not  change  its  relations  to  the  expended 
capital  and  labor,  nor  can  such  arbitrary  and  purely  constructiv* 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  273 

classification,  to  suit  certain  theories,  impair  its  right  to  full 
protection. 

Geobge  H.  Ely. 
Cleveland,  0. 


lEON  AND  STEEL. 

WAGES,    PRICES,  AND   PROFITS. 

The  passage  of  a  measure  by  Congress  reducing  tariff  duties  on 
iron  and  steel  on  the  lines  of  the  President's  message  would  result 
only  in  mischief  and  disaster.  It  would,  to  use  the  President's 
terms  as  applied  to  the  tariff,  be  vicious,  iniquitous  and  illogical. 
Vicious,  because  the  industries  would  be  badly  disarranged  and 
business  unsettled  and  made  precarious  ;  iniquitous,  because  the 
wages  of  labor  must  necessarily  be  reduced ;  and  illogical,  because 
the  evil  sought  to  be  rectified  would  simply  be  aggravated. 

The  President  in  his  message  speaks  of  the  ''  immense  profits'* 
of  manufacturers,  from  which  we  may  infer  that  a  reduction  of 
tariff  duties  would  reduce  these  profits  to  a  normal  level  without 
interfering  with  the  rates  of  wages  now  paid  to  labor. 

The  "  immense  profits  "  of  the  iron  and  steel  manu'acturers, 
we  regret  in  some  sense  to  say,  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of 
the  President.  The  wages  of  iron  and  steel  workers,  that  is,  the 
labor  engaged  in  our  rolling  mills,  arc  regulated  by  "  Scales  of 
Prices,"  which  are  agreements  entered  into  by  employers  and  em- 
ployes, basing  wages  on  the  selling  price  of  irr  n  and  steel. 

This  system  has  been  in  existence  for  over  twenty-five  years, 
and  by  its  operation  the  workingmen  have  obtained  a  very  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  the  cost  of  production  of  all  grades,  sizes  and 
shapes  of  iron  and  steel,  thus  enabling  them  to  receive  such  pro- 
portionate wages  as  to  leave  to  the  employer  but  a  fair  and  reason- 
able margin  for  profit.  The  manufacturer  must  make  a  profit, 
and  it  being  questionable  whether  American  manufacturers  make 
larger  profits  than  English  manufacturers — i.  e.,  i.  larger  per- 
centage on  the  invested  capital — it  follows  that  a  tariff  reduction 
on  foreign  products  would  quicken  competition  from  abroad,  reduce 
prices,  and  necessarily  lower  wages  and  cheapen  materials ;  hence, 
it  is  very  clear  that  the  chief  sufferers  would  be  the  workingmen. 

The  wages  now  paid  English  iron  and  steel  workers  are  miser- 
ably low,  while  ours  are  receiving  reasonable  and  fair  wages. 


274  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Sj)ace  will  not  admit  of  a  list  of  comparative  wages  here.  Common 
day  labor  is  now  getting  in  England  from  48  cents  to  73  cents  per 
day  ;  in  this  country  from  $1.2o  to  $1.75  per  day.  Skilled  labor 
shows  a  greater  difference  still  in  favor  of  the  American  laborer. 
Puddlers  are  paid  $5.50  per  ton  in  this  country  ;  in  England  only 
$1.56  per  ton.  Heaters  and  rollers  will  earn  from  two  to  tliree 
times  as  much  per  day  in  this  country  as  the  same  class  of  work- 
men in  England,  yet  our  workmen  receive  only  fair  wages. 

The  difference  in  the  selling  price  of  iron  and  steel  in  each 
country  do  not  show  in  the  same  ratio.  The  price  of  a  ton  of 
good  fibrous  bar  iron  in  this  country  is  about  $41.44:  the  same 
quality  in  England  would  be  $31.50,  a  difference  of  only  $9.94. 
The  total  wages  paid  in  England  in  converting  pig  iron  into  bar 
iron  is  about  $4,96,  and  in  this  country  about  $12.74  per  ton.  A 
significant  fact  is  brought  out  if  we  add  these  wages  to  the  price 
of  pig  iron  in  each  country, — thus,  in  England,  price  of  pig  iron 
$11  per  ton,  wages  as  above  $4.96 — total,  $15.96  ;  price  of  bar 
iron  $31.50  ;  margin  left  for  materials,  wear  and  tear,  insurance, 
taxes,  profit,  etc.,  $15.54.  In  this  country,  price  of  pig  iron,  $18 
per  ton  ;  wages  as  above,  $12.74,  total,  $30.74  ;  price  of  bar  iron, 
$41.44;  margin  for  materials,  etc.,  $10.70.  Were  it  not  for  the 
higher  governmental  taxation  in  England,  23  per  cent,  against  5 
per  cent,  in  this  country,  the  English  manufacturer  would  be  in 
a  far  better  position  than  the  American. 

That  we  cannot  stand  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  is  very  clear 
from  the  increased  importations  of  last  year.  The  least  stiffening 
in  prices,  and  we  are  on  the  danger  line,  and  in  comes  the  foreign 
product. 

To  reduce  duties  can  therefore  only  result  in  larger  importa- 
tions ;  but  to  protect  American  industries  we  require  such  a  revis- 
ion of  the  tariff  as  to  make  it  protective  in  all  its  parts. 

JoHif  Jaebett. 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. 


AGRICULTURAL   MACHINERY. 

The  President's  message  is  a  radical  plea  for  free  trade.  It  haa 
taken  legislative  shape  in  the  "  Dark  Lantern  Bill"  recently  in- 
troduced by  Mr.  Mills.     This  bill  is  sectional  and  partisan.     If  it 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  27f) 

becomes  a  law  it  will  cripple  many  of  the  great  industries  of  the 
country, — industries  so  interwoven  that  it  is  impossible  to  strike 
down  one  without  injuring  the  others. 

Free  trade  would  be  specially  hurtful  to  our  metal  industries 
and  to  all  their  allied  interests.  The  prosperity  of  the  manufac- 
ture of  agricultural  implements  and  farm  machinery  depends 
directly  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  farmer.  Whatever  reduces 
his  income  limits  our  production.  Free  trade  injures  him,  and, 
therefore,  injures  us.  Protection  benefits  him,  and,  therefore, 
benefits  us.  It  is  claimed  that  under  free  trade  the  farmer  can 
buy  his  agricultural  implements,  farm  machinery,  clothing,  and 
other  necessaries  at  greatly  reduced  prices.  But  he  must  not 
forget  that  free  trade  is  sweeping  in  its  effects,  and,  while  it  may 
cheapen  his  supplies,  it  will  cheapen  in  still  greater  measure  the 
value  of  his  farm  and  all  its  products.  The  farmer  now  has  pro- 
tection of  twenty  cents  per  bushel  on  wheat ;  ten  cents  per  bushel 
on  rye,  com,  oats,  and  barley ;  and  corresponding  protection  on 
other  farm  products.  Free  trade  will  bring  to  our  seaboard  foreign 
wheat  at  lower  prices,  and  at  less  cost  for  transportation  than  his 
grain  can  be  brought  from  the  great  Northwest.  He  must  then 
contend  against  wheat  from  India  and  Russia  raised  by  labor  at 
from  five  to  fifteen  cents  a  day.  Foreign  grain  and  foreign  pro- 
ducts will  fix  the  price  of  his  grain  and  his  products.  Protection 
means  to  the  farmer  higher  prices,  better  crops,  more  valuable 
lands,  and  greater  prosperity.  It  means,  too,  better  markets. 
His  home  market  is  his  best  market.  Now  protection  fosters 
manufacturing  industries,  increases  the  numbers  employed  in  these 
industries,  and  decreases  the  numbers  engaged  in  agriculture,  and 
thus  furnishes  the  farmer  a  larger  market,  with  better  purchasing 
capacity.  The  farmer  in  the  States  blest  with  manufacturing 
establishments  more  readily  appreciates  these  benefits  than  the 
farmer  of  the  great  West,  who  suffers  under  the  disadvantages  of 
distance  from  his  market. 

What  would  be  the  effect  of  free  trade  upon  the  wages  of  the 
workmen  ?  They  now  receive  from  forty  to  sixty  per  cent,  higher 
wages  than  the  men  of  like  occupation  abroad.  They  would  be 
the  greatest  sufferers  were  free  trade  inflicted  upon  our  country. 
Their  wages  would  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  pauper  wages  of 
Europe  with  which  they  must  compete. 

They  would  barely  be  able  to  maintain  themselvee  and  their 
18 


276  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

families.     How  then  could  they  purchase  and  own   their  own 
homes  as  so  many  of  them  now  do  ? 

Workingmen  should  be  the  stanchest  supporters  of  protec- 
tion. While  free  trade  would  bring  free  wool  and  cheap  clothing, 
it  would  lower  wages  fifty  per  cent,  and  raise  the  price  of  mutton 
forty  per  cent.  ;  and  the  old  story  of  free  trade  countries  would 
be  repeated  in  our  land — **  meat  for  the  workingman  once  a 
week." 

The  capital  and  the  competition  within  our  own  country  will 
regulate  the  prices  of  every  commodity. 

Our  government  was  created  to  bring  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number — the  working  classes.  The  second  law  placed 
upon  its  statute-book  was  for  protection.  Patrick  Henry  wisely 
suggested  that  a  good  way  to  judge  the  future  was  by  the  past. 
Our  country  has  always  prospered  under  the  laws  of  protection. 
Her  greatest  statesmen  of  both  political  parties  in  the  past  (as 
well  as  the  present)  have  been  on  the  side  of  protection  :  and  while 
our  present  tariff  laws  might  with  safety  be  readjusted  upon 
some  minor  points,  yet  the  policy  of  free  trade  is  founded  upon 
false  theories. 

The  President  allows  the  "  surplus  "  to  accumulate — when  un- 
der existing  laws  it  should  have  been  applied  toward  paying  the 
national  debt — and  then  points  to  this  "surplus"  as  an  excuse  for 
his  free-trade  message. 

a.  l.  congeb. 

Akron,  0. 

TEXTILE  MACHINERY. 

The  probable  effect  of  any  measures  passed  pursuant  to  the 

line  of  President  Cleveland's  message  on  the  industry  I  represent, 

'  which  is  the  building  of   machinery  for  use  in  manufacturing 

cotton,  wool  and  worsted   yarns  and  cloths,  would  be  paralysis 

and  ultimately  death. 

The  question  is  so  serious  that  to  answer  it  in  a  manner  com- 
mensurate with  its  importance,  involves  determining  the  logical 
interpretation  of  the  message,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  industries 
of  this  country  ;  for,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  there  are  those  who 
maintain  that  the  message  does  not  favor  the  policy  of  free-trade. 
Those  who  hold   this  opinion  are  not  found  only  among  the 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  277 

adherents  of  the  party  with  which  the  President  is  identified. 
All  dispassionate  thinkers,  however,  and  the  great  majority  of  all 
political  parties  in  the  United  States,  the  free-traders  of  England 
and  the  intelligent  readers  of  all  interested  nations,  agree  that  the 
message'is  a  bold,  candid  and  distinct  free-trade  paper. 

Therefore,  legislation  on  the  line  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  message 
means  the  removal  of  the  protective  feature  of  our  tariff  laws,  the 
enlargement  of  the  free-list  and  the  final  opening  of  the  markets 
of  the  United  States  to  foreign  competition. 

It  can  be  clearly  shown  that,  in  all  protected  industries  where 
labor  is  the  chief  element  of  cost,  the  entire  duty  paid  by  the  im- 
porter of  the  foreign  article  goes  to  the  American  work-people  and 
not  to  the  proprietors  and  capitalists.  The  effect,  therefore,  on 
the  wages  of  workmen  would  be  at  first  to  reduce  the  amount. 
But,  as  it  would  be  an  undoubted  impossibility  to  re-adjust  at  once 
all  values  upon  the  basis  of  foreign  labor,  the  secondary  result 
would  be  to  deprive  the  wage-earner  of  employment  in  the  industry 
under  consideration. 

If  the  duty  of  forty-five  per  cent,  that  nominally  protects  the 
American  machine  builder  were  removed,  the  machine  user  would 
be  enabled  to  purchase  mill-outfits  at  so  large  a  reduction  as  utter- 
ly to  defeat  American  competition.  The  hopelessness  of  the  ma- 
chine builder's  condition  would  compel  the  discharge  of  his  work- 
men and  the  closing  of  his  works.  But,  with  the  ability  to  buy 
mill  machinery  at  a  price  as  much  less  as  foreign  is  less  than 
American  labor,  would  come  cheap  goods,  so  cheap,  that  he  must 
be  a  bold  man  who  would  undertake  to  make  them  in  competition 
with  English  and  German  operatives. 

Mills  would  stand  idle,  and  those  who  now  attend  the  spinning 
machine  and  the  loom,  as  well  as  those  who  toil  to  build  these  use- 
ful machines,  would  be  forced  to  seek  other  modes  of  gaining  a 
livelihood,  or,  in  default,  to  suffer  in  idleness.  This  is,  without 
doubt,  a  gloomy  picture,  but,  even  without  any  legislation,  the 
effect  of  the  message  has  been  to  unsettle  trade,  reduce  its  volume 
and  depress  prices. 

The  work  of  man's  hands,  measured  by  the  medium  of  ex- 
change, fixes  the  measure  of  wealth.  Consequently,  such  a  re- 
duction of  duties  as  would  reduce  the  exchangeable  value  of  labor 
to  the  standard  of  any  foreign  people  must  cause  widespread  dis- 
aster. 


278  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Perhaps,  after  the  slow  process  of  re-adjustment,  new  values 
would  be  established  and,  under  new  conditions,  with  a  well-de- 
fined population  of  laborers  and  artisans,  there  might  be  a  revival 
of  industrial  employments  ;  but,  of  course,  upon  a  basis  of  wages 
as  low  as  paid  in  any  competing  country. 

Stockton  Bates. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

WOOL    GEOWING. 

I  am  asked  what  would  be  the  probable  effect  of  any  measures 
based  on  the  lines  of  President  Cleveland's  message  on  the  indus- 
try of  sheep  husbandry  and  wool-growing,  and  on  the  workmen's 
wages. 

Very  disastrous,  I  think.  The  slight  reduction  of  duties  on 
wool  by  the  Act  of  1883  has  caused  the  slaughter  of  many  sheep, 
and  largely  increased  the  importation  of  foreign  wool.  No  one 
can  have  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  free  admission  of  wool  from 
countries  so  highly  favored  for  its  production,  as  regards  soil  and 
climate,  as  Australia  and  South  America  would  destroy  wool-grow- 
ing in  the  United  States,  and  inflict  a  terrible  blow  on  woolleji 
manufacturers  as  well. 

The  wages  of  workmen  in  every  other  industry  would  decline 
by  reason  of  the  increased  competition  resulting  from  a  million  or 
more  flockmasters  seeking  other  employments. 

True,  clothing  and  woolens  would  for  a  time  at  least  be  cheaper 
in  price,  but  would  they  cost  us  less  ?  Here  is  the  delusion.  The 
laborer,  the  merchant,  the  mechanic,  the  lawyer,  doctor,  preacher, 
buys  his  clothing  by  the  labor  or  service  that  he  sells. 

Destroy  one  great  industry  and  its  workers  distribute  them- 
selves among  the  several  trades  and  professions  remaining.  Com- 
petition lowers  prices.  We  may  have  less  to  pay  for  our  clothing, 
but  less  to  give  in  exchange  for  it,  hence  it  will  cost  us  more. 

Nor  would  free  wool  give  our  manufacturers  control  of  foreign 
markets.  Free  cotton  has  not.  We  consume  at  home  say  ninety- 
five  per  cent,  of  cotton  manufactures  and  export  five  per  cent.  The 
cost  of  labor  is  the  principal  factor  in  the  cost  of  production.  To 
compete  in  foreign  markets  we  must  reduce  wages,  transportation, 
interest,  etc.,  to  foreign  schedules.  This  we  cannot,  will  not, 
should  not  do. 


THE  PkESlDENfS  PANACEA.  $79 

The  problem  to  solve  in  economic  legislation  is  not  how  to 
cheapen  prices,  but  rather  how  to  diversify,  encourage  and  pro- 
tect industrial  occupations  for  our  teeming  population.  Prices 
will  take  care  of  themselves  in  a  country  so  large  and  with  such 
varied  climate  and  marvelous  resources  as  ours.  Consumers  have 
abundant  protection  by  reason  of  home  competition.  Monopoly 
cannot  possibly  exist  beyond  a  brief  period. 

But  the  destruction  of  sheep  husbandry  and  wool  growing  im- 
perils the  whole  protective  system,  and  should  meet  the  united  pro- 
test of  all  other  industries.  It  is  the  chief  protected  industry  of 
the  farmer,  common  to  every  State  and  Territory.  Agricultural 
constituencies  are,  or  may  be,  supreme  in  legislation.  Outside  a 
few  cities  farmers  constitute  political  majorities.  They  have  a 
clear  right  to  be  heard. 

Domestic  sheep  husbandry  has  incidental  public  advantages. 
It  makes  us  independent  of  foreign  nations  for  our  supply  of 
clothing,  all-important  in  time  of  war,  as  we  do  not  command 
the  sea.  It  enriches  our  soil.  It  affords  the  readiest  means  of 
supplying  a  growing  deficiency  in  animal  food.  Meat  is  the  chief 
item  of  necessary  expense  in  a  large  proportion  of  families. 

The  diminished  cost  of  animal  food  by  the  protection  of  sheep 
husbandry,  with  adequate  import  duties  on  wool,  would  many 
times  compensate  for  increased  cost  of  woolen  fabrics. 

W.  S.  Shallenberger. 

KOCHESTER,  Pa. 


COTTON    MANUFACTURES. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  were  surprised  and  startled  at 
the  dogmatic  assertions  in  the  President's  message.  Had  he  been 
better  informed  as  to  the  probable  effect  of  the  measures  proposed, 
he  might  have  been  more  cautious. 

His  party  having  a  clear  majority  in  the  House — the  opposite 
majority  in  the  Senate  being  very  narrow — with  the  open  threats 
made  by  the  Free  Trade  Press  to  coerce  those  Democrats  who  dif- 
fered from  the  President,  are  sufficient  cause  for  solicitude  on  th« 
part  of  manufacturers. 

Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  Government  has  a  President 
in  his  message  gone  out  of  his  way  to  attack  and  impugn  a  purely 


280  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

business  class  of  the  people,  comprising  men  of  both  parties,  pur- 
suing in  a  legitimate  way  honorable  callings  which  it  has  up  to 
this  time  been  the  general  policy  of  the  Government  to  encourage 
and  upbuild.  This,  with  the  Speaker's  manifesto,  and  the  extraor- 
dinary composition  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  are 
a  sufficient  notice  to  the  industries  of  the  country  that  they  are 
to  be  put  upon  their  defense. 

What  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  cotton  industries  of  the 
country  rf  the  President  and  the  majority  of  his  party  in  Con- 
gress succeed  in  carrying  out  their  policy  ? 

The  demand  for  home  consumption  of  the  cheaper  and  coarser 
grades  of  cottons  was  long  ago  fully  met  by  the  American  manu- 
facturer, and  so  close  and  sharp  is  the  competition,  that  none  but 
the  very  best  mills  under  the  ablest  management  have  been  able 
to  work  at  a  profit,  some  both  North  and  South  having  gone 
into  bankruptcy. 

Although  labor  is  not  so  large  an  element  of  cost  in  these  as  in 
the  finer  goods,  the  higher  wages  in  this  country  have  prevented 
our  spinners  from  taking  any  large  share  of  the  trade  in  China 
and  the  East.  There  is  then  no  outlet  at  home  or  abroad  for  an 
increased  production  of  coarse  fabrics.  In  the  medium  grades 
the  same  conditions  exist.  We  cannot  compete  in  the  foreign 
market,  and  our  own  is  fully  supplied.  The  American  consumer 
is  cheaply  supplied  with  every  grade  of  cotton  goods. 

About  one-fifth  of  the  spindles  of  the  country  are  making  the 
finer  grades  of  goods  against  which  the  foreigner  maintains  a 
sharp  and  quite  successful  competition  in  our  own  market. 

There  were  imported  into  this  country  last  year  $29,150,058.83 
worth  of  cotton  manufactures,  almost  entirely  the  finer  grades  of 
fabrics  and  yarns.  Any  material  reduction  in  the  duties  upon 
these  goods  would  enable  the  foreigner  to  drive  the  domestic 
manufacturer  out  of  the  market  unless  he  could  find  some  means 
of  cheapening  the  cost  of  the  goods.  The  President's  "  tree  raw 
material"  cannot  help,  because  cotton  bears  no  duty.  The  plant 
is  fixed.  Taxes  and  interest  cannot  be  reduced.  If  these  fine 
mills  should  be  turned  upon  the  coarser  fabrics  the  market  would 
be  glutted,  and  all  would  go  to  ruin  together.  There  would  be  but 
two  methods  of  meeting  the  emergency — to  stop  a  part  of  the 
machinery  or  reduce  the  wages  of  labor  until  the  cost  of  the  goods 
was  at  an  equilibrium  with  those  imported. 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  281 

This  is  a  very  simple  statement,  and  to  those  unfamiliar  with 
such  matters  it  might  appear  very  easy  of  accomplishment.  But 
in  these  industrial  contests  none  of  the  forces  retire  from  the 
field  until  they  are  vanquished.  That  means  a  financial  crippling 
and  final  stoppage  of  many  establishments,  operatives  thrown  out 
of  employment,  failure  of  traders  who  supply  the  work  people, 
and  of  merchants  and  bankers  who  deal  with  the  manufacturers. 
The  operatives  would  not  submit  to  a  reduction  of  their  pay  with- 
out a  contest ;  but  in  the  end  the  inevitable  result  would  be  that 
labor  must  take  its  share  of  the  reduction.  Labor  in  cotton  fac- 
tories in  America  is  about  sixty-five  per  cent,  higher  than  in 
Great  Britain,  twice  as  much  as  in  France,  two  and  a  quarter 
times  that  in  Switzerland  and  nearly  three  times  what  it  is  in 
Italy.  The  three  former  send  us  large  quantities  of  fine  cottons, 
and  a  very  small  reduction  of  duties  would  enable  them  to  increase 
the  quantity  thrown  upon  our  market  largely,  stopping  our  mills, 
throwing  labor  out  of  employment,  with  resultant  injury  that  would 
not  stop  with  those  directly  interested. 

All  kinds  of  business  in  a  country  are  interdependent,  and  any 
material  injury  to  one  must  sooner  or  later  be  felt  by  all,  just  as 
when  you  drop  a  pebble  into  the  pond  curling  ripples  reach  the 
shore  on  every  side  and  every  drop  of  water  becomes  disturbed. 
The  cotton  spinners  of  America  have  fulfilled  the  predictions  of 
the  fathers  of  the  Protective  system.  They  furnish  wares  unex- 
celled in  quality  at  prices  at  which  the  consumer  cannot  and  does 
not  complain.  There  are  no  trusts  in  the  cotton  business.  This 
attempt  to  disturb  and  injure  industries  which  have  grown  up  un- 
der the  system  of  Protection  is  a  wanton  attack  upon  labor  and 
upon  praiseworthy  business  enterprises  which  finds  no  justification 
in  the  condition  of  the  country. 

Jonathan  Chace. 

Washington,  D.  C. 


FLAX,  HEMP,  AND  JUTE  MANUFACTUEES. 

The  cultivation  and  preparation  of  flax,  hemp  and  jute,  and 
the  manufacture  of  these  fibres  into  yarns,  twines,  threads  and 
woven  fabrics,  necessitates  a  large  expenditure  of  skilled  labor. 


2^2  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THIS  TARIFF  QVESTTON. 

The  wages  paid  in  other  countries  where  flax,  hemp,  and  jute 
goods  are  manufactured,  are  upon  a  very  low  scale  as  compared 
with  the  wages  paid  in  our  mills  for  the  same  kind  of  work. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  concerning  the  real  mean- 
ing of  President  Cleveland's  recent  message  to  Congress.  It  has 
received  the  condemnation  of  no  free  foreign  trader  either  in 
Europe  or  America.  It  has  met  with  the  approval  of  no  real  pro- 
tectionist. It  is,  therefore,  in  fact  a  revenue  reform  or  a  free 
foreign  trade  message.  Its  recommendations  and  its  logic,  if 
carried  into  practical  operation,  would  produce  a  complete  revo- 
lution in  the  linen  industry  of  the  United  States. 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  following  facts  and  figures,  a  tariff 
for  revenue  only  will  as  effectually  destroy  the  American  linen 
industry  as  would  absolute  free  foreign  trade.  For  several  years 
the  cultivation  of  flax  and  hemp  in  the  United  States  has  steadily 
decreased,  and  the  placing  of  these  so-called  raw  materials  on  the 
free  list  will  only  hasten  the  time  when  the  cultivation  of  these 
fibres  will  be  numbered  with  the  lost  arts  of  our  American  in- 
dustry. 

In  the  manufacture  of  these  fibres  the  real  work  is  done  by 
machinery,  and  Great  Britain  makes  this  machinery  for  all  the 
world.  The  same  spindle  is  capable  of  running  as  many  revolu- 
tions per  minute  and  turning  off  as  much  yarn  per  day  in  India, 
Russia  or  Germany  as  in  the  United  States.  A  mere  glance  at  the 
wages  paid  in  different  parts  of  the  world  will  convince  the  most 
skeptical  that  our  wages  must  go  down  if  the  tax  upon  foreign 
goods  is  reduced.  Without  this  unhappy  result  the  American 
mills  cannot  be  operated  in  competition  with  foreign  mills. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  ocean  freights  are  no  barrier  to 
the  foreign  mills,  since  the  raw  material  has  to  be  brought  over 
the  same  ocean  route.  The  unavoidable  shrinkage  of  the  raw 
material  in  the  process  of  manufacture  is,  in  fact,  a  large  item  of 
protection  to  the  foreign  mill,  freight  upon  the  dead  waste  being 
avoided.  From  this  ugly  item  the  American  mill  can  find  no 
escape. 

The  following  were  the  average  weekly  wages  paid  in  the  flax, 
hemp  and  jute  spinning  trade  in  different  countries  in  1886,  as 
compiled  by  the  Flax  and  Hemp  Spinners'  and  Growers'  Asso- 
ciation of  America,  from  the  most  reliable  sources  of  informa- 
tion : 


THE  PttESlDENT'S  PANACEA.  J283 

Spinner-!.  Carders. 

United  States  (60  hours  per  week) $7.00  $6.00 

Great  Britain  (56  hours  per  week) 2.83  2.19 

France  (72  hours  per  week) 2.02  2.20 

Gtermany  (72  hours  per  week)  1.98  1 .65 

Eastern  Russia  (81  hours  per  week) 1.10  

Western  Russia  (72  hours  per  week) 1.12  1.18 

India 62  .60 

It  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  tax  upon  the  product  of  foreign 
goods  without  reducing  American  wages.  The  importation  of 
yarns  under  the  present  tariff  is  forcing  American  mills  into  an 
unprofitable  existence.  Only  a  mere  pittance  of  the  woven  fab- 
rics consumed  in  this  country  is  made  at  home,  and  many  of  these 
never  will  be  made  here  under  President  Cleveland's  proposed  in- 
dustrial policy  until  American  working  people  are  content  to  live 
on  rice  at  a  cent  and  a  half  a  day,  and  clothe  themselves  with  only 
a  cloth  about  the  loins.  In  a  large  area  of  our  country  this  mode 
of  life  is  impossible.  If  by  law  we  attempt  to  starve  the  working 
people  into  such  an  existence,  our  climate  would  make  it  impossi- 
ble, and  the  attempt  should  never  be  made. 

E.  A.  Hartshorn. 

Troy,  N.  Y. 


MANUFACTURES   OF    SILK. 

The  silk  industry  in  the  United  States  has  been  built  up  with 
great  difficulty.  There  are  several  distict  branches  of  it,  one  or 
two  of  which  are  very  much  older  than  the  rest,  and  have  made 
greater  progress  ;  most  of  them  date  their  successes  from  very 
recent  years ;  some  are  even  now  barely  beginning,  and  doubt- 
ful of  results.  But  their  separate  histories,  so  far  as  they  go,  are 
alike  in  these  essential  features  : 

(1)  They  begin  with  a  long,  arduous  struggle  : — an  endeavor 
to  compete  with  the  European  goods  in  possession  of  the  market. 

(2)  In  every  instance  our  manufacturers  have  found  it  neces- 
sary to  make  better  goods  than  those  of  Europe,  as  well  as  to  sell 
at  lower  prices.  This  process  has  in  each  case  to  be  continued 
until  the  American  goods  win  a  reputation  superior  to  that  of  the 
European ;  and  until,  also,  the  popular  prejudice  in  favor  of  for- 
eign goods  can  be  at  least  partially  overcome. 

(3)  In  its  early  stages  each  branch  of  the  manufacture  is  an 


2S4  BOTH  STDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

experiment — often  a  very  costly  one,  and  subject  to  repeated  fail- 
ures. Both  employers  and  employes  have  to  learn  their  trade  by 
experience,  and  years  must  be  spent  in  training  operatives  and 
systematizing  business.  In  most  branches  we  are  still  serving 
our  apprenticeship. 

(4)  Whenever  any  branch  of  the  industry  has  achieved  a 
measure  of  success  against  foreign  competition,  its  attractions 
have  caused  many  new  concerns  to  start  in  the  business,  and  a 
home  competition — harder  to  meet  than  even  the  foreign — has 
been  engendered,  resulting  in  a  notable  lowering  of  prices  and 
narrowing  of  margins  of  profit. 

In  all  discussions  of  this  topic,  the  great  changes  in  trade 
which  have  been  brought  about  by  the  steamship  and  telegraph 
must  be  fairly  considered.  Silk  goods  are  of  small  bulk  compared 
with  their  value  ;  the  present  cost  of  bringing  them  from  Europe 
to  New  York  is  scarcely  greater  than  from  a  factory  in  an  adjoin- 
ing State ;  the  difference  in  time  of  transit  is  barely  a  week  ;  the 
order  for  them  can  be  given  by  cable,  and  the  settlement  through 
banker's  credits  can  be  effected  with  equal  ease. 

The  European  manufacturer  has  cheaper  capiiai,  smaller 
expenses  in  many  ways,  an  inherited  experience,  skilled  operatives 
trained  to  the  business,  established  reputation,  a  market  in  two 
hemispheres,  and — more  than  all  else — very  low-priced  W^r. 

To  counterbalance  these  advantages,  the  American  manufact- 
urer has  such  protection  as  the  tariff  may  afford.  It  is  the  bulwark 
of  our  industry. 

What  would  be  the  effect  of  a  material  reduction  of  the  duty 
on  silk  goods  ?  Manifestly,  a  similar  contraction  of  the  industry 
in  this  country.  Some  hundreds  of  manufacturers,  unable  to 
wait  until  our  Government  could  retrace  its  steps,  would  quit 
business  except  with  lawyers  and  assignees.  There  would  be  a 
period  of  very  hard  times  in  the  industry,  both  for  employers  and 
employed.  Manufacturing  here  could  be  continued  only  by  assimi- 
lating its  conditions  to  those  of  Europe ;  that  is,  by  reducing 
wages,  so  as  to  pay  25  or  60  cents  per  day  to  operatives  who  now 
get  11.00  to  $1.50. 

What  would  be  gained  by  such  reduction  of  duty  ? 

Foreign  manufacturers  and  their  agents  would  gain  the  great- 
est advantage.  The  work  that  ceased  here  would  be  carried  on  in 
Europe. 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  285 

Perhaps  for  a  while  foreign  silk  goods  would  be  cheaper, 
though  the  absence  of  American  competition  would  soon  enable 
Europeans  to  advance  their  prices.  This  at  the  utmost  seems  rather 
a  doubtful  advantage  for  working-people,  whose  families,  with  re- 
duced wages,  would  be  less  able  than  they  are  now  to  buy  the  goods. 

Also,  in  some  way  that  has  never  been  clear  to  me,  the  American 
manufacturer  who  when  the  tariff  if  reduced  can  scarcely  compete 
with  the  foreign  goods  in  this  country,  will  then  be  enabled  to 
obtain  an  export  trade — i.  e.,  to  compete  with  such  goods  in  some 
other  country. 

England  has  made  the  experiment  of  reducing  and  finally 
abolishing  the  tariff  on  silk  goods.  We  do  not  need  to  repeat  that 
blunder.  The  results  are  well  known  :  the  home  manufacture 
fell  off  enormously ;  an  increased  importation  of  French  goods 
took  the  vacant  place  and  has  kept  it  ever  since.  Poverty  de- 
scended on  the  chief  sites  of  the  industry ;  in  Macclesfield  there 
were  for  years  thousands  of  houses  untenanted,  and  from  that 
"  doomed  town  "  there  went  forth  a  goodly  number  of  emigrants 
who  are  now  prosperous  citizens  of  Paterson,  N".  J. 

Wm.  C.  Wyckoff, 
Secretary  Silk  Association  of  America* 

New  York,  March  10. 


WOOLENS    AND    WORSTEDS. 

It  chances  that  I  need  only  point  to  the  actual  present  condi- 
tion oj.  tne  industry  in  which  I  am  engaged  to  illustrate  the  effect 
of  tariff  reductions,  based  upon  the  lines  of  the  President's  mes- 
sage. By  a  misapprehension  of  the  value  of  the  term  *' worsted," 
the  tariff  of  1883  lowered  the  duties  upon  this  branch  of  woolen 
manufacture  below  the  protecting  point.  The  results  have  been 
vast  importations  of  foreign  worsteds,  a  large  increase  of  revenue 
(which  will  doubtless  surprise  Mr.  Cleveland),  and  an  almost  com- 
plete paralysis  of  the  worsted  industry  in  this  country — which  will 
certainly  please  and  benefit  foreign  manufacturers.  Fully  one- 
half  of  the  worsted  machinery  of  the  country  is  now  idle  and  the 
remainder  is  kept  running  unprofitably,  only  to  furnish  employ- 
ment to  skilled  operatives,  in  the  hope  that  the  discrimination 
against  this  industry  is  accidental  and  temporary,  rather  than  the 
evidence  of  a  settled  purpose  to  destroy  it. 


$36  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

Avoiding  abstract  argument  upon  the  benefits  or  the  evils  of 
the  protective  tariffs  of  the  past  twenty  years,  we  may  all  admit  that 
owing  to  their  stimulation  we  have  built  up  in  this  country,  dur- 
ing that  period,  a  vast  and  intricate  industrial  system  whose  foun- 
dations rest  upon  the  protective  idea,  whose  growth  has  absorbed 
such  a  proportion  of  the  investments  and  the  labor  of  the  coun- 
try, and  has  entwined  itself  so  inextricably  with  its  economic  and 
social  conditions  that  any  legislation  which  is  inimical  to  that 
system  is  equally  so  to  the  country  at  large.  To  lower  the  duties 
upon  the  products  of  any  industry  below  the  protecting  point  is 
to  destroy  that  industry  in  this  country,  to  make  a  gift  of  its  pur- 
suit and  the  benefits  and  employment  derived  therefrom  to  other 
peoples,  and  to  increase  the  revenue  receipts  of  the  Government 
instead  of  diminishing  them.  The  present  condition  of  our 
worsted  manufactures  will  sufiiciently  prove  this.  It  is  obvious 
therefore  that  the  tariff  should  be  kept  at  a  point  which  permite 
the  continuance  of  domestic  manufactures.  To  do  this  ought  not 
to  be  a  difficult  problem.  Indeed  the  only  difficulty  seems  to 
arise  from  a  curious  morbid  mental  attitude  which  the  heat  of 
argument  appears  to  have  developed  in  the  minds  of  free  trade 
advocates  ;  many  of  these  seem  to  regard  manufacturers  as  a  class 
who  recklessly  ply  their  pursuits  and  prey  upon  the  community, 
and  whose  testimony  with  regard  to  the  effect  of  laws,  having  to 
do  with  those  pursuits,  if  of  no  more  value  than  that  of  a  robber 
touching  some  criminal  enactment. 

This  frame  of  mind  is  well  illustrated  by  the  action  of  the 
majority  of  the  present  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  who,  while 
formulating  a  new  tariff,  have  persistently  refused  to  hear  the 
testimony  of  manufacturers  and  merchants  as  to  its  effect  upon 
the  business  prosperity  of  the  country.  It  is  as  if,  in  devising  a 
law  to  regulate  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court,  the  testimony  of  legal 
experts  were  excluded  on  the  ground  that  it  was  ex  parte  and 
untrustworthy.  Walter  H.  McDaniels. 

Lowell,  Mass. 


COAL. 

I  am  asked:  ''What  would  be  the  probable  effect  on  the  industry 
you  represent,  and  on  your  workmen's  wages,  of  any  measures 
passed  in  the  line  of  President  Cleveland's  message  ?  " 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  287 

This  country's  coal  industry,  as  a  whole,  needs  no  direct  pro- 
tection fron  foreign  coal,  even  be  that  coal  free -freighted,  as  bal- 
last, to  our  shores. 

In  my  opinion  a  revised  tariff  may  safely  omit  any  duty  on 
coal,  provided  the  duty  on  American  coal  exported  to  Canada 
shall  soon  thereafter  be  abolished. 

In  this  we  should  gain  much  more  than  we  should  lose.  Can- 
ada, in  many  places,  is  burning  wood,  which  American  coal 
would  displace  but  for  the  Canadian  duty  on  our  coal.  Freed  from 
this  duty,  our  coal  will  penetrate  further  down  the  Kiver  St. 
Lawrence,  in  competition  with  coal  from  Nova  Scotia,  than  it  is 
now  able  to  do. 

But,  coal  is  the  mainspring  which  drives  the  wheels  of  manu- 
facture and  of  commerce.  Our  manufactures  were  built  up  under 
the  shelter  of  a  tariff,  not  for  revenue  only,  but  also  for  protec- 
tion. Any  unfriendly  or  unwise  tampering  with  that  tariff, 
resulting  in  reducing  that  protection  below  the  point  necessary  in 
order  that  American  capital  and  American  labor  may  stand 
against  competition  from  the  starvation  labor  of  Europe,  cannot 
but  react  hurtfully  on  our  coal  industry,  reducing  both  the  wages 
of  our  workmen  and  the  output  of  our  coal. 

Let  the  tariff  be  revised,  but  let  it  be  done  only  by  hands 
known  to  be  friendly  to  protection  of  American  industries.  Com- 
iTxOn  i  "'.^arest  so  demands. 

The  President's  recent  proposition  touching  this  revision  has 
already  produced  widespread  distrust,  and  has  exerted  a  baneful 
influence  on  our  industries  :  not  because  the  people  are  unwilling 
that  revision  be  made,  but  because  they  fear  that  revision  if  made 
by  unfriendly  hands. 

They  are  willing  that  all  excessive  protection,  which  results  in 
only  unusual  and  unfair  profits  to  capital,  and  which  thus  unnec- 
essarily taxes  productive  labor,  shall  be  pruned  away. 

They  want  only  such  protection  left  as  shall  prevent  our  citizen 
workmen  from  being  forced  to  the  wage  level  of  Europe. 

The  condition  of  our  industries  to-day  renders  unwise  any  un- 
necessary experiment.  To  illustrate,  let  two  circles,  the  larger 
enclosing  the  smaller,  represent  the  case,  the  larger  circle  repre- 
senting the  total  number  of  our  workmen,  the  smaller  circle  repre- 
senting the  number  of  those  workmen  employed,  and  the  space 
between  the  lines  of  the  two  circles  representing  the  unemployed. 


288  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

The  employed  are  the  producers,  and  upon  them  is  the  whole 
burden  of  the  community.  The  unemployed  are  a  tax  upon  those 
producers.  Anything  which  tends  to  •jduce  the  circumference 
of  the  smaller  circle  will  increase  the  space  between  the  circles. 
Unwise  tampering  with  the  laws  under  which  our  industries  have 
grown  and  thrived  will  decrease  the  size  of  the  inner  circle,  and 
thus  increase  the  burden  upon  the  producing  labor.  Again,  let 
two  similar  circles  represent  the  respective  ratio  of  total  workmen 
and  total  employed  workmen  in  Europe,  changing  only  the  rela- 
tive sizes  of  these  circles  so  that  the  space  between  their  lines  shall 
be  much  larger  than  that  between  those  representing  the  Ameri- 
can situation.  Then  unwise  reductions  in  our  tariff  will  extend 
the  circle  of  European  employed  workmen  just  in  proportion  as  it 
reduces  the  circle  of  the  employed  in  America,  thus  transferring 
part  of  the  burden  from  the  employed  in  Europe  to  the  employed 
in  America,  and  the  logical  conclusion  of  this  line  of  action  must 
be  either  to  force  our  wage  level  down  to  that  of  Europe,  or  to  bring 
about  a  situation  represented  by  an  exchange  of  the  circles  repre- 
senting the  relative  situation  in  the  two  countries,  giving  to  us 
the  two  circles  showing  the  greatest  space  between  their  lines. 
When  these  exchanged  circles  shall  represent  the  then  true  situa- 
tion of  affairs,  a  necessity  will  have  arisen  for  American  statecraft, 
following  European  practice,  to  form  a  standing  army,  from  the 
unemployed,  taxing  the  disproportionate  ranks  of  the  producers 
for  its  support,  as  a  lesser  evil  than  to  subject  those  producers  to 
the  viciousness  consequent  from  the  largely  excessive  numbers  of 
the  unemployed.  Europe  is  in  this  'condition  to-day.  Is  it  wis- 
dom on  our  part  to  exp^xunent  toward  that  condition  ?  Patriot- 
ism seems  to  demand  that  our  citizens  should  cheerfully  bear  so 
light  an  individual  tax  as  that  resultant  from  our  present  tariff 
laws,  when  of  that  aggregate  tax  so  large  a  portion  is  distributed 
to  our  citizen  workmen,  enabling  them  to  rear  and  educate  their 
sons  to  the  level  demanded  by  American  citizenship,  and  to  fit 
their  daughters  for  wifehood  and  motherhood,  instead  of,  as  in 
Europe,  sending  them  immature  to  do  manual  labor  in  the  mines 
and  fields. 

Let  us,  as  citizens  of  a  great  country,  instinct  with  patriotic 
feelings,  give  competition  free  play  among  ourselves,  and  thus, 
while  cheapening  productive  cost,  retain  the  yearly  increment  of 
wealth,  but  let  not  our  lawgivers  force  us  into  competition  with 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  28 J 

the  foreign  laborer  within  whose  breast  long  continued  want  and 
sqnalor  have  doubtless  left  but  little  room  for  feelings  patriotic. 

Wm.  p.  De  Aemit. 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

PAPER. 

It  is  asked  how  the  paper  industry  would  be  affected  if  Presi- 
dent Cleveland's  tariff  views  became  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment. 

The  consumption  of  paper  in  this  country  exceeds,  per  capita, 
that  of  any  other  nation  :  indisputable  evidence  of  the  superior 
condition  and  general  prosperity  of  the  American  people ;  and 
forcibly  illustrating  the  effects  of  the  present  protective  tariff 
policy  of  the  country. 

Although  the  average  rate  of  duty  on  all  manufactured  goods 
exceeds  40  per  cent.,  the  present  duty  on  unsized  printing  paper, 
which  is  much  the  larger  part  of  the  paper  product  of  the  coun- 
try, has  been  reduced  to  15  per  cent.  Several  dutiable  articles — 
caustic  soda,  soda  ash,  alum,  ultramarine,  aniline  dyes,  woolen 
felts,  brass  wire,  and  wood  pulp— are,  in  a  sense,  the  raw  material 
for  paper  making.  Most  of  these  articles  pay  a  much  higher  rate 
of  duty  than  is  levied  on  paper,  yet,  they  being  distinctive  manu- 
factures, American  as  well  as  foreign,  the  paper  manufacturers 
ask  no  change  in  duties,  believing  that  such  change  would  check, 
if  not  annihilate,  the  American  manufacture  and  consequently 
destroy  the  competition  now  going  on  between  the  manufactures 
of  all  countries.  All  these  manufactures  are  of  recent  establish- 
ment in  this  country,  and  they  have  wrought  a  wonderful  change 
in  the  cost  of  their  respective  productions,  and  could  not  survive 
free  trade  and  maintain  the  present  standard  of  wages  paid  by 
them.  Further,  paper  makers,  as  a  class,  recognize  that  there  is 
in  this  system  a  principle  as  well  as  a  policy,  and  honor  it  by 
according  to  other  industries  that  protection  which  they  ask  for 
themselves. 

The  wages  paid  in  any  branch  of  the  paper  industry  in  America 
are  more  than  double  those  paid  in  any  other  country. 

The  price  of  common  "newspaper"  in  1860  was  fully  9  cents 
per  pound  ;  it  rose  during  the  war  to  28  cents,  and  is  now  sold  at 
4^  to  4>^  cents  per  pound.     The  consumer  of  paper  has  certainly 


290  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

no  occasion  to  complain.  In  what  other  industry  has  there  been 
such  a  marked  reduction  in  price  ? 

A  general  depression  in  other  industries  would  directly  and 
quickly  affect  the  paper  trade.  The  very  general  use  of  paper  in 
newspapers  and  books  could,  and  would,  be  curtailed  by  the  les- 
sening of  the  purchasing  power  of  labor,  or  by  the  non-employment 
of  men,  a  condition  certain  to  follow  the  throwing  wider  open  our 
markets  to  the  products  of  other  nations,  wrought  with  cheap 
labor. 

The  cry  for  free  trade,  or  the  demand  that  all  the  protective 
features  shall  be  eliminated  from  the  tariff,  is  the  voice  of  the  few, 
with  whom  I  have  not  time  to  deal  in  this  brief  article. 

Laws,  both  human  and  divine,  are  instituted  and  maintained 
for  the  purpose  of  affording  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest 
number.  The  present  American  tariff  system,  so  well  grounded 
and  so  thoroughly  tested,  and  so  beneficent  in  its  results  to  the 
many,  should  not,  and,  I  predict,  will  not,  be  overthrown,  though 
tangled  in  American  politics  and  vigorously  assaulted  from  abroad. 

Lawrekce,  Mass.  Wm.  A.  Eussell. 


FLkTE  GLASS. 


Our  industry,  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass,  is  a  peculiar  one. 
The  capital  required  is  large,  the  process  of  manufacture  excep- 
tionally hazardous  and  the  skill  demanded  very  great.  Every 
attempt  to  manufacture  plate  glass  in  America  was  a  failure, 
resulting  in  financial  disaster  and  ruin  to  the  undertakers,  until 
we  took  hold  of  it  at  this  place.  In  fact  every  dollar  (aggregating 
millions)  invested  in  it  before  1879  was  lost. 

My  father  was  a  retired  banker,  worth  several  millions. 
Persuaded  by  friends,  he  invested  $200,000  in  this  business.  The 
company  borrowed  freely  from  his  banks,  until  in  1872,  finding 
1500,000  of  his  money  involved,  he  left  his  retirement  and  took 
personal  charge  of  the  works,  putting  in  nearly  a  million  dollars 
more. 

In  1879,  when  the  business  first  reached  a  paying  basis,  his 
actual  losses  were  $619,790.40.  Since  then  we  have  not  made  up 
this  loss,  without  counting  interest.  If  the  money  put  into  this 
business  had  been  invested  in  Government  bonds,  and  the  interest 
re-invested,  his  estate  would  have  been  half  a  million  dollars 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  PANACEA.  291 

larger,  and  his  life  probably  prolonged  for  years — for  he  died  from 
overwork. 

It  is  therefore  patent  that  the  profits  cannot  meet  the  reduc- 
tion. If  it  comes,  we  must  either  stop  our  works  or  our  labor 
must  stand  it.  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  production  is 
labor.  Our  skilled  workmen  average  $17.04  per  week,  against 
$7.05  in  England,  $6.34  in  France  and  $6.60  in  Belgium. 

The  only  labor  we  have  ever  imported  was  skilled  men,  whose 
knowledge  was  necessary  to  start  the  new  industry.  In  Europe, 
father,  mother  and  children  were  barely  able  by  their  united  earn- 
ings to  keep  body  and  soul  together.  Our  men  earn  enough  to 
support  their  families  and  educate  their  children. 

Before  we  made  plate  glass,  the  foreigner,  having  a  monopoly, 
charged  exorbitant  prices.  The  records  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment show  that  the  average  cost  of  large  unsilvered  plate 
glass  imported  in  1875  (our  first  year  of  active  competition)  was 
97^^  cents  per  square  foot,  while  in  1887  the  average  was  32^ 
cents,  a  reduction  of  66f  per  cent.  Silvered  plate  glass  averaged 
in  1875  $1.26  per  square  foot,  in  1887  it  averaged  $1.09j'^  per 
square  foot,  a  reduction  of  12-/^^  per  cent.  Why  is  the  reduction 
in  one  five  times  larger  than  the  other  ?  Solely  because  unsilvered 
plate  is  made  in  America,  while  silvered  plate  is  not,  and  higher 
prices  are  exacted  and  will  be  forever,  unless  the  present  tariff  is 
maintained  until  factories  can  be  established.  A  plate  of  glass 
costing  $105  when  our  works  were  established  sells  to-day  for 
$31.50,  and,  bear  in  mind  that  no  part  of  this  great  reduction 
is  due  either  to  improved  methods  or  improved  machinery,  but 
solely  to  sharp  competition  of  American  manufacturers. 

Americans  can  do  what  any  people  can,  but  they  cannot  in 
fifteen  years  reach  the  same  condition  that  France  attained  under 
an  absolutely  prohibitory  tariff  in  two  hundred  years  and  England 
reached  under  a  tariff  eight  to  twelve  times  as  large  ae  ours  in  one 
hundred  and  sixty  years. 

I  have  faith  to  believe  that,  when  we  are  old  enough  to  have 
full  crews  of  Americans,  their  "  genius^'  will  make  improvements 
and  discoveries  that  will  revolutionize  our  business  and  enable  us 
to  compete  on  equal  grounds  with  foreign  makers  and  still  pay  liv- 
ing wages,  but  that  day  has  not  yet  come. 

N.  T.  Dr  Pauw. 

New  Albany,  Ind. 
19 


292  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

SUGAR    CULTURE. 

The  abolition  of  the  duty  on  sugar  would  mean  the  entire 
annihilation  of  the  Louisiana  sugar  industry.  The  sugar  fields 
would  be  abandoned  to  weeds  and  willows,  and  the  machinery  of 
the  costly  factories  rendered  valueless,  except  as  scrap  iron.  A 
considerable  reduction  of  the  duty,  say  50  per  cent.,  Avould  have 
about  the  same  effect  as  its  entire  repeal,  although  the  abandon- 
ment of  sugar  culture  would  be  more  gradual  in  the  former  than 
in  the  latter  event. 

About  one-half  the  capital  and  one-half  the  population  of  the 
State  of  Louisiana  are  employed  in  sugar  culture.  The  extinction 
of  this  industry  would  result  in  the  gradual  forced  emigration  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  laborers  engaged  in  this  branch  of  agri- 
culture. Were  it  possible,  and  it  is  not,  to  substitute  any  other 
crop  for  that  of  sugar,  there  is  no  other  that  will  support  so  large 
a  population  on  a  given  area  of  land. 

The  sugar  crop  last  year  sold  for  more  than  $20,000,000,  the 
most  of  which  was  distributed  through  the  channels  of  interstate 
commerce.  The  destruction  of  capital  consequent  upon  a  repeal 
of  the  sugar  duties  would  not  only  involve  merchants,  planters, 
and  laborers  in  a  common  ruin,  but  the  loss  of  the  sugar  industry 
would  be  a  national  calamity. 

If  called  upon  to  bear  a  share  in  any  general  sacrifice  for  the 
public  welfare,  the  Louisiana  planters  might  be  willing,  and  pos- 
sibly able,  to  stand  a  reduction  of  ten  per  cent.,  if  assured  of 
future  stability. 

While  any  reduction  would  have  an  injurious  effect,  the  insta- 
bility of  the  present  tariff  is  far  more  serious  in  its  consequences 
than  would  be  a  slight  reduction  of  duty. 

To  keep  up  with  the  scientific  development  of  the  sugar  in- 
dustry abroad,  new  and  expensive  machinery  is  required  by  the 
planters ;  but  it  is  considered  unsafe  to  invest  any  large  amounts 
of  capital  in  this  manner  under  the  annual  and  the  existing  men- 
ace of  unfavorable  tariff  legislation. 

Taking  bad  and  good  years  together,  the  sugar  industry  has 
made  steady,  if  not  rapid,  progress,  the  crop  of  last  year  having 
been  exceeded  by  only  six  ante-bellum  crops.  The  product  for 
ten  years,  from  1865  to  1874,  was  490,000  tons;  for  a  like  period. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  PANACEA,  293 

from  1875  to  1884,  1,030,000  tons,  an  increase  of  more  than  100 
per  cent.  Progress  is  now  more  marked  than  ever,  and  but  for 
the  agitation  in  Congress,  the  prospects  of  the  sugar  industry 
were  never  brighter. 

The  question  of  wages  depends  of  course  upon  whether  the  in- 
dustry advances  or  retrogrades.  With  adequate  and  stable  protec- 
tion the  production  of  sugar  in  Louisiana  will  largely  increase 
from  year  to  year,  and  the  consequent  demand  for  labor  will  in- 
sure even  better  wages  than  are  now  paid.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  duty  be  so  reduced  as  to  lead  to  the  partial  abandonment  of 
cane  culture,  a  reduction  of  wages  would  undoubtedly  follow  an 
excessive  supply  of  labor  and  lower  prices  for  sugar. 

With  such  wages  as  free  American  laborers  command  it  is  im- 
possible without  tariff  protection  to  compete  with  the  beet  sugar 
produced  under  bounties  by  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe,  and  with 
South  American,  West  Indian,  East  Indian  and  Hawaiian  cane 
sugars  groAvn  by  coolie  or  other  semi-slave  labor. 

Louis  Bush. 

New  Orleans,  La. 


SOUTHEEN  INTEEESTS. 

Eadical  changes  in  our  national  tariff  laws  would  affect  the 
people  of  Florida  less  directly,  but  not  less  sensibly,  than  tliey 
would  the  people  of  the  Northern  States.  Florida  has  few  pro- 
tected industries  of  present  importance,  orange-growing  and 
lumber  manufacture  being  chief  ;  but  she  is,  nevertheless,  much 
concerned  in  the  maintenance  of  Protection.  We  are  told  by 
Southern  revenue  reformers  that  the  tariff  has  made  the  North 
rich  and  prosperous,  but  has  not  benefitted  the  South.  What  is 
said  of  the  North  we  believe  to  be  true  ;  what  is  asserted  of  the 
South  is  nearly  true  of  Florida,  if  we  consider  only  the  tariff's 
direct  effects,  but  not  otherwise.  Florida,  until  of  late,  was 
always  poor — poor  under  revenue  tariffs  and  under  Protection — 
and  she  might  have  remained  forever  poor  except  for  that  very 
prosperity  at  the  North  whiclj,  having  developed  the  great  West, 
turned  its  bounty  upon  us  and  gave  to  Florida,  the  earliest  dis- 
covered and  longest  settled,  her  first  start  in  the  world.  Florida's 
recent  growth  is  due  directly  to  that  prosperity  which  Protection 


294  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

has  built  up  in  the  North.  Eight  years  ago  a  Pennsylvania 
manufacturer  redeemed  Florida's  public  domain  from  pawn, 
receiving  for  his  million  thus  devoted  a  tract  of  overflowed  land  ; 
with  other  hundreds  of  thousands  he  drained  a  great  area  of  it, 
planted  a  thousand  acres  of  sugar-cane,  bought  improved  machin- 
ery, and  is,  to-day,  harvesting  his  first  crop.  The  district,  when 
drained,  will  contain  several  million  acres  of  richest  sugar  lands, 
one-half  of  wliich  will  belong  to  the  State.  If  the  sugar  tariff  is 
spared,  Florida  will  yet  produce,  as  prophesied  by  ex-President 
Grant,  in  1880,  "the  one  hundred  million  pounds  of  sugar  now 
imported."  The  release  of  our  public  domain  gave  us  railways — 
nearly  fifteen  hundred  miles  of  new  track  since  1881 ;  railways 
have  brought  immigration,  developed  new  industries,  established 
trade,  given  us  splendid  hotels  and  tens  of  thousands  of  winter 
tourists,  all  from  the  same  prosperous  North.  And  we  have  yet 
other  undeveloped  industries,  one,  at  least,  as  great  as  all  we  may 
expect  of  sugar  ;  I  refer  to  the  possibilities  of  our  native  fibre 
plants.  As  Florida's  start  in  life  is  due  to  Northern  prosperity, 
so  is  her  future  dependent  upon  its  continuance.  Hard  times  at 
the  North  means  for  us  scarcity  of  money,  high  rates  of  interest, 
railway  and  other  building  stopped,  no  market  for  fruits  and 
winter  vegetables,  no  tourists,  and  ten  thousand  tramps.  We  see 
no  benefit  to  us  in  a  transfer  of  prosperity  from  Northern  manu- 
facturers to  Northern  importers;  the  manufacturer  keeps  the 
money  at  home  where  we  can  borrow  of  it ;  the  importer  sends  it 
abroad.  We  are  not  convinced  by  arguments  about  the  tax  on 
necessities;  where  the  mean  temperature  of  winter  rarely  falls  below 
fifty  degrees  Fahrenheit  the  price  of  woollens  is  not  a  burning 
issue.  We  are  not  moved  by  the  revival-of-foreign-commerce 
plea.  It  is  paying  best  to  develop  our  internal  resources.  If  our 
country,  like  the  British  empire,  were  in  pieces,  separated  by 
leagues  of  sea,  we,  too,  should  need  ships,  but  we  are  in  one 
piece,  and  in  railways  we  have  outstripped  all  the  rest  of  the 
world.  While  New  York  harbor  is  ready  for  foreign  commerce, 
Florida  harbors  are  not.  In  New  York's  far-seeing  economy 
appropriations  for  Southern  harbors  have  been  always  "  swindles" 
and  "steals,"  reserved  for  New  York  press  denunciations  and  the 
vetoes  of  tariff-reducing  presidents. 

John  P.  Varnum. 
Jacksonville,  Fla. 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  295 

THE  LABOR  MARKET. 

**  What  would  be  the  effect  on  workmen's  wages  in  this 
country,  of  any  measures  passed  in  accordance  with  the  recom- 
mendations of  President  Cleveland's  message,  in  regard  to  reduc- 
tion of  revenue  by  taking  the  amount  necessary  off  from  our 
present  tariff?" 

In  answer  to  this  question,  I  would  say  most  unhesitatingly 
that  it  would  do  one  of  two  things  :  either  have  the  effect,  in 
many  branches  of  our  manufactures,  of  forcing  a  reduction  in  the 
price  of  labor  from  ten  to  thirty  per  cent.  ;  or  would  force  the 
wage  earners  employed  in  these  occupations  into  other  fields  of 
labor  not  so  immediately  and  directly  affected  by  the  operations 
of  a  protective  tariff  ;  and  as  those  fields  of  labor  are  now  supplied 
to  meet  the  demand  for  our  present  population,  such  transfer 
would  not  be  made  to  any  extent,  and  therefore  it  must  of 
necessity  take  the  course  of  reduction  of  wages  in  this  country, 
approximately  to  the  scale  of  wages  paid  the  same  kind  of  labor 
in  Europe,  and  the  reasons  are  very  plain  : 

Steam  and  electricity  have  in  the  past  few  years  changed  all 
the  currents  of  trade  with  foreign  countries.  Quick,  certain  and 
cheap  transportation  on  the  ocean,  has  so  changed  the  conditions 
of  trade,  that  the  slightest  vibration  in  prices  or  of  the  conditions 
of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  or  of  the  cost  of  product,  is  at 
once  felt  all  over  this  country  as  well  as  Europe. 

A  difference  of  even  5  per  cent,  in  the  cost  of  production  of 
any  given  article  of  manufacture,  will  either  retain  the  orders  for 
production  in  this  country,  or  it  will  transfer  them  to  European 
manufacturers.  This  being  the  fact  (as  every  dealer  knows)  it 
will  immediately  bring  the  price  of  labor  in  this  country  in  com- 
petition with  the  labor  of  Europe,  and  this  state  of  things  will 
not  take,  as  in  old  times,  a  long  time  to  accomplish,  but  will  be 
immediate  and  complete,  just  so  soon  as  the  laws  go  into  effect 
that  create  this  state  of  affairs. 

Then  what  is  the  inevitable  result  ?  The  labor  market  in  this 
country  (and  I  am  glad  that  it  is  so)  resists  reduction  in  the  price 
of  labor — and  the  result  must  of  necessity  be,  that  the  orders  for 
many  goods  now  manufactured  in  this  country  must  and  will  go 
to  foreign  manufacturers  ;  our  mills  will  reduce  their  output  or 
stop  entirely,  and  the  raw  products  now  manufactured  in  this 


296  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION. 

country  will  be  transported  in  foreign  ships  (for  we  have  none  to 
speak  of)  and  be  returned  to  us  in  a  manufactured  state.  Our 
labor  market  would  be  over-supplied  ;  discontent,  murmurs  and 
suffering  would  ensue,  but  finally  the  wage  earner  must  accept  a 
rate  of  loages  that  is  nearly  on  the  plane  of  the  European  laborer. 

This  result  will  come  not  alone  to  operatives  in  our  manufact- 
uring industries,  but  also  to  the  thousand  and  one  industries 
wholly  dependent  upon  increase  of  population  and  upon  the  rate 
of  wages  received  by  the  mass  of  operatives.  Therefore,  the 
inevitable  and  only  result  that  can  come  to  the  wage  earners  of 
this  country,  if  President  Cleveland's  recommendations  go  into 
effect,  is  a  reduction  of  wages. 

New  York.  H.  K.  Thurber. 


AGRICULTURE. 


•  The  President,  if  I  understand  him,  proposes  to  reduce  the 
tariff  on  manufactured  commodities,  under  the  pretence  of  ren- 
dering them  more  cheap  to  the  consumers.  In  my  judgment  this 
would  be  a  great  injury  to  the  agricultural  industry  of  the  country. 
A  reduction  of  duties  must  result  in  one  of  two  things:  in  reducing 
the  wages  of  our  laboring  people,  or  else  transferring  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  manufacturing  industry  of  this  country  to  Europe. 
Either  of  these  would  result  in  injury  to  our  people  generally,  to 
none  more  than  the  farmers.  The  agricultural  products  of  the 
country,  outside  of  tobacco  and  cotton,  probably  amount  yearly 
to  $3,500,000,000.  Of  this  product  about  93  per  cent,  is  co^- 
sumed  by  our  own  people,  and  only  about  eight  per  cent,  exported. 
Our  work  people,  taking  one  industry  with  another,  are  paid  double 
the  amount  of  wages  that  are  paid  to  the  work  people  of  Europe  for 
performing  the  same  amount  of  labor  there;  and  are  therefore  better 
fed,  better  clothed,  better  housed,  and  better  educated  than  the 
work  people  of  any  country  in  the  world;  have  not  only  the  neces- 
saries, but  many  of  the  luxuries  of  life  as  well,  and  in  consequence 
consume  more  of  the  manufactured  commodities  and  eat  more  of 
the  agricultural  products,  per  capita,  than  any  people  elsewhere  on 
the  globe;  for  the  purchasing  capacity  of  a  dollar  here  is  as  great  as  it 
is  in  Europe.  Now,  the  power  or  ability  of  the  workingman  to  buy, 
whether  it  be  clothes  for  the  body  or  food  to  eat,  depends  on  the 
wages  he  receives.     Take  from  him  any  part  of  the  wages  he  now 


THE  PRESIDENTS  PANACEA.  297 

earns,  whether  by  a  reduction  or  the  transfer  of  the  business  to 
Europe,  and  you  lessen  his  power  to  buy  either  agricultural  prod- 
ucts or  manufactured  commodities  to  the  extent  of  the  wages  he 
loses,  and  this  will  affect  agriculture  as  well  as  all  the  other 
industries  of  the  country. 

Anything  that  injures  the  home  market  injures  the  farmer,  for 
the  home  market  is  his  main  dependence  for  the  sale  of  his  surplus 
products,  and  it  is  out  of  these  that  he  lives  ;  it  is  from  these  that 
he  clothes  himself  and  family  and  provides  the  necessaries  of  life. 

No  civilized  nation  has  ever  been  prosperous  or  great  without 
a  diversity  of  human  industries  ;  and  the  more  numerous  the  in- 
dustries the  more  people  will  be  employed  and  the  larger  the 
wages  paid.  When  the  people  are  employed  they  earn  wages,  and 
the  more  wages  they  earn  the  more  goods  and  provisions  they  can 
buy. 

There  is  still  another  phase  of  this  question  :  when  you  transfer 
any  of  the  industries  to  Europe,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  to  the 
extent  that  you  do  it,  you  throw  our  people  out  of  employment,  and 
it  becomes  necessary  for  them  to  seek  some  other  occupation.  Many 
of  these  from  necessity  would  be  driven  into  agriculture,  and  in 
this  way  they  would  become  producers  rather  than  consumers  of 
agricultural  products,  thereby  increasing  our  surplus  of  agricultu- 
i-al  products,  and  making  it  more  difficult  for  the  farmer  to  sell  at 
remunerative  prices.  Therefore  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  as  now 
proposed  would  be  a  source  of  great  injury  to  the  farmers  as  well 
as  the  working  people  of  the  country. 

Thomas  H.  Dudley. 

Camden,  N.  J, 


«•♦..«  ♦kV"    °*  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 
from  whteh  It  was  borrowed 


3  1158  01023  3939 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


DEC  7     1954 


?ENE\'/AL 
J)  URL 


iAN      4t96S 
NAY  7     t96£ 

MAY  2  91962 


BCD  UMNO 


DEC  20 
■AN23 


15 /S9] 


1976 


JAN  2  3 


r|)r3T8I976 


^tC'l)  LD-URB 


JS:    NOV  2276 


EEJlS^'feli  Eii^ 


DINDEF 


Form  L9 — 15m-10,'48  (B1039  )  444 


'^'^fi'^KBgnT  OP  OAUFOKNIA 
L08ANGWBB 


